HC Deb 11 February 1976 vol 905 cc438-9
39. Mr. Canavan

asked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to meet the Faculty of Advocates.

The Lord Advocate

I have no plans at present for a meeting with the Faculty of Advocates.

Mr. Canavan

Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the recent statement by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, when referring to the proposals for devolution in the Government's White Paper, that the concept of a legislative Assembly being constitutionally subordinate to one Minister, namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is offensive to the democratic principles that were established in both Scotland and England even before the Treaty of Union?

The Lord Advocate

I understand the point that the Dean of the Faculty made, but I think that the learned Dean is under a misconception as to the constitutional proposal contained in the White Paper. The White Paper proposes that in any exercise, on behalf of the Government, of the limited power that the Secretary of State has to remit legislative and executive matters, the Secretary of State requires the positive agreement of Parliament. That can be seen by reading paragraphs 59 and 73 of the White Paper. Accordingly, it is wrong to suggest that the subordination of the Assembly would be other than truly parliamentary.

As my hon. Friend has mentioned the letter from the Dean, perhaps I may take the opportunity of saying that during the devolution debate I may have unwittingly given the impression that three of the four representations to which I was then referring had positively endorsed the White Paper concerning the question of law enforcement. That is incorrect. What I sought to convey was that only one of the representations—that of the Law Society—had taken issue on this point.

Mr. Fairbairn

Since the opinion expressed in the Dean of the Faculty's letter was not his personal opinion, but was given on behalf of members of the Faculty of Advocates, with whom he consulted, does the Lord Advocate not think that it is very unsatisfactory that under the privilege of this House he should either criticise the judgment of the Dean, who is a distinguished silk, or try to make the excuse that the White Paper is so clear that so distinguished a man could not be misled by it?

The Lord Advocate

I hope that nothing I said about the learned Dean's letter suggested that I was in any way critical of his good faith in writing what he did, but I think it would be wrong to suggest that the letter that was sent to the Government contained the concluded views of the Faculty of Advocates. The Dean made it perfectly clear that it was a letter written by him after consultation with members of the Faculty.