COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 August 1894)

§ MR. T.M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said, he wished respectfully to enter his objection, not intending to do more than make it formal, to the system the Statute Law Revision Committee had adopted of reviving enactments formerly repealed. It practically amounted to a surprise upon Parliament and to the legal profession. As he understood, by the sub-section it was proposed that, a certain Scotch Act repealed many years ago—in 1888—an Act or part of an Act which had laid dormant all this time, should now be revived. This might lie very proper; he was not complaining of the revival, but the revival should be by a new Act, and not by the machinery of a Statute Law Revision Bill. If he desired he might raise what he believed would be a fatal objection in calling attention to the fact that the title of the Rill indicated repeal, whereas this Bill revived an enactment already repealed. It should be the duty of the very eminent gentlemen who represented the legal profession or the Treasury Bench to insist that the Statute Law Revision Committee should do one of two things—either not revive an Act, or if there was any doubt as to its having been repealed by inadvertence they should revive it by substantive Act. He could not lay great blame on the Statute Law Revision Committee, considering their enormous labours, because they now and then made a mistake. Ho had himself come across four mistakes in repealing operative Acts 1351 causing great inconvenience to many persons. But when the Committee found they had made a mistake they should come frankly to Parliament and say so, and have the mistake rectified by a Bill. To do this by the Statute Law Revision Bill led to dangerous misunderstandings in the profession. He wanted the Attorney General to express an opinion in regard to the section he had amended.

§ * SIR J. RIGBY
Undoubtedly there are cases in which some slips have been made. It is, and it has been the practice, so I am told, for many years, where it has been made clear to the Committee that accidentally such a slip has taken place, to correct it in the Statute Law Revision Bill. Of course, such methods of correction are to be exercised with the utmost care, and in every such case it has been the practice since I have known anything of the proceedings of the Joint Committee to refer to every person who by any chance could throw any light on the subject, and the Committee only proceed in the way of reviving a section when it is quite clear that what has been done has been done inadvertently, and by a slip. In this particular case there has been no departure from the usual practice. There had been an undoubted slip in reference to a Scotch Act. This was carefully considered by the Joint Committee when it was thought that a slip had occurred, and the course pursued was that which had been taken in previous years, opportunity being taken to remedy the inadvertence. Wherever there is a doubt as to that being the proper course to pursue, the invariable practice of the Joint Committee has been to give way and not attempt to revive an enactment when there is any doubt as to the absolute safety of the course to be taken.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
said, he had listened with great care to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it was no clearer to him now than it was before the explanation what the Committee was doing. As he understood, a Scotch Act, or a portion of a Scotch Act, had been repealed, and now the repealing statute was to be repealed. But surely they had been in the habit of knowing what they were enacting, and he desired to know what was the Act 1352 repealed; what was its object, and what had been the result?

§ * SIR J. RIGBY
In this particular instance it is only making the Statute Book in accordance with what has been done. By some slip in a Statute of 1888 some words—one or two words—of the Statute were left out enabling different authorities to collect taxes. They have-gone on as if there had been no alteration at all; it was not noticed that an alteration had taken place, and there was no alteration in practice.

§ DR. CLARK
The Local Authorities in Scotland have been collecting taxes illegally?

§ * SIR J. RIGBY
No, not at all. It was only a doubt, a certain doubt. The point had never been raised by anyone. Of course, if there had been a repeal of this power it would never have been used. It is only a certain doubt, to be cleared away by this alteration.

§ DR. CLARK
said, he did not yet know the object. Who were the Local Authorities—were they Poor Law Authorities, were they Municipal Authorities who had been acting in this fashion? He thought before they re-enacted a law which had been repealed they ought to know specifically what they were doing. Perhaps, as this was a Scotch matter, the Lord Advocate would be able to tell Members of the Committee what they were doing? All he had gathered was that in 1888 there was a clause repealed, that municipal or other authorities did not know that, and had gone on collecting taxes when they actually had not authority to do so, or there was a doubt about it, and now the Local Authorities were to have the power given them. Really the Committee should know more about this.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said, there was one point upon which perhaps the Attorney General could enlighten the Committee. It appeared that the Local Authorities had had no legal power to make the collections during the years since 1888. Was it competent for anyone who had made payments during the time to bring an action against a Local Authority for illegal collection of taxes?

§ DR. CLARK
said, if no explanation was forthcoming he should take a Division. There should be some refer- 1353 ence to the subject by the Attorney General or the Lord Advocate.

§ MR. ALBAN GIBBS (London)
suggested they might be allowed to know the name of the Act in question.

§ * SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)
said, he had ventured to suggest on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House that a little more time should be allowed to consider it; and as the result of such examination as he had been able to make he had one or two suggestions to offer, which, however, he would defer to the Report. As the object of this legislation was simplicity and the prevention of repetition, was it not foolish to deal with two clauses of the old Merchant Shipping Acts, seeing that the House had passed an Act repealing the whole and consolidating the provisions.