Clause 46. —(CITATION, REPEAL AND EXTENT.) (Hansard, 7 December 1949)

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn)
I beg to move, in page 41, line 39, to leave out "five" and to insert "six."
This has the effect of making Clause 6 apply to Scotland. That may be necessary in view of the position of the River Esk, where a prosecution might take place that would involve the application of the English law in Scotland.

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move, in page 42, line 8, to leave out subsection (4).
This Amendment meets the Privilege Amendment inserted in the Lords.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
I should like to the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain a little further subsection (3, b). This is rather obscure. Does the reference in subsection (3) to the First Schedule refer to the office of the Lord President of the Council? I ask the Secretary of State whether there is provision under this subsection for the duties of the Lord Chancellor in appointing justices of the peace to be transferred to the Lord President of the Council and in Scotland to the Lord President of the Court of Session? Is there to be provision for this on Report stage? There is a strong feeling on the part of Scottish Members that the power of the Lord Chancellor to appoint justices of the peace in Scotland should be transferred to Scotland. Is there any provision for this, or is it intended to make provision for it on Report stage?

§ Mr. Woodburn
Some of these Clauses may refer to the position of the Lord Chancellor. So far as the Lord President is concerned, if the hon. Member will read the report of the Royal Commission which sat on this question, he will learn that the Commission examined the question of who should be responsible for these matters. They took into account all the opinions expressed by those who gave evidence in Scotland, and there was a great deal of difference of opinion on the subject. The Commission could get no agreement in Scotland as to what change, if any, should be made, with the result that the Commission recommended that in the meantime the position should be left with the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor, in another place, expressed his view on the point which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman, and he said that as far as he was concerned he would gladly hand over the particular position he occupied in this matter if agreement could be arrived at amongst Scotsmen as to who was to do it. This position of the Lord Chancellor has been held since the Act of Union in 1707, and quite clearly it is not possible for the Government to fly in the face of a Royal Commission, on which Scotland was represented, which took evidence in Scotland, and which had these representations made to it.

§ Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)
I am interested in the point raised by my right hon. Friend about the respect which is shown to the findings of a Royal Commission. I should like to remind him that a Royal Commission issued a Report in 1834 recommending that certain offices in the City of Glasgow and in other towns in Scotland should be abolished. No respect has been shown to the findings of that Royal Commission. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should apply to that Commission of 115 years ago the respect which he is now showing to a Commission of a more recent date.

§ Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)
My right hon. Friend will recognise that some of the functions of the Lord Chancellor have already been given to the Lord President of the Court of Session under the pensions appeal tribunal arrangement where those functions are performed by the Lord President. Therefore, whilst it is true that difficulties exist, nevertheless we have taken one step towards getting this arrangement made in Scotland. Would my right hon. Friend look into this matter again before the Report stage?

§ Mr. Woodburn
The point is that the Commission looked into it.

§ Mr. Willis
This was since the Commission.

§ Mr. Woodburn
No. The Commission looked into it. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) talked about the respect due to a Royal Commission. That is one thing, but what the Royal Commission did was to pay respect to the opinion of people in Scotland. It is rather difficult for either this Committee or a Royal Commission to go in the face of opinion expressed by those who gave responsible evidence in Scotland. The position of the Lord President of the Court of Session was that what was suggested was not a practical proposition. It could not be carried out. That was made clear in the evidence of the Commission and in the Report. Therefore, if any change is to be made it will have to be one which is practicable. That is a matter for consideration by the people of Scotland first, and once they come to agreement about what they want and what they consider to be right, then the Government are prepared to consider the matter.

§ Mr. Gallacher
Will the Secretary of State tell us who are the people in Scotland to whom he referred? There are a lot of people from Scotland in this Committee. I am one of the people from Scotland, but the Commission did not come anywhere near me.