§ 34. Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the law of contempt of court in Scotland.
§ The Lord AdvocateIn my view there is room for reform in this field. The report of the Phillimore Committee has been carefully studied by the Government, and a discussion paper was issued in March 1978. Following discussion on the basis of that paper the Government will consider what further action should be taken.
§ Mr. FairbairnWill the Lord Advocate remind the House that although we are a United Kingdom there are two systems of law in this country? Will he further remind hon. Members that if they were to defy a court order in contempt of that court in Scotland and reveal the names of witnesses under the pretence of parliamentary privilege, there would be no defence in a Scottish court?
§ The Lord AdvocateThe hon. and learned Member has put forward a view of the law with his customary learning and authority. I point out that the Phillimore Committee, set up jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate, reported jointly to those two Ministers, who share responsibility on these matters.
§ Mr. BuchanIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is no surprise that there are cases of contempt of court arising from the Philistine behaviour of that august body the Writers to the Signet in dispensing with a highly important library for gain and not because it needed the space, thereby depriving Scotland and its universities of valuable books and records?
§ The Lord AdvocateI have no doubt that the learned institutions in Scotland that wanted the books will take every opportunity of purchasing them. If an institution finds that it is not using its 468 library it is better, by and large, that others who can use it should get the books.