Skip to main content

Clause 17—(Interpretation, Transitional Provisions, Repeals And Citation Of Part I)

Volume 465: debated on Tuesday 31 May 1949

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page 16, line 42, at the end, to insert:

"so much of section (10) of the Act of the Parliament of Scotland, 1587, cap. 57, as provides for the appointment of counsel and solicitors to act for persons accused of crime."
This is really a drafting Amendment repealing the provisions of the Act of 1587 which will no longer be required.

I only rise to express surprise that not only has this important omission to be rectified by way of Amendment, but also to express surprise that the Lord Advocate said this was merely a drafting Amendment. After all, subsection (3) of this Clause starts off by referring us to an Act of the Parliament of Scotland in 1424. Now we are invited—and I am not quarrelling with this—to repeal an Act of the Scots Parliament of 1587, 160 years later. There is this remarkable difference: whereas the Act of the Scots Parliament in 1424 only relates to the compilation of the Poor Law, here we are to override a decision of the Parliament of 1587, the first year of King James the Sixth, as I may remind the House, dealing with the question of providing legal assistance by way of the appointment of counsel and solicitors to act for persons accused of crimes. That is surely a very much more important item than the compilation of the Poor Law by the Scots Parliament 160 years later.

I am indeed surprised that this very important matter should have escaped the Lord Advocate's attention so far. I agree that if we are to provide this legal aid at all we must make provision where necessary for the overriding of previous statutes. I am not complaining about that. I am delighted to think that as long ago as 1587 the then Scots Parliament should have provided legal aid in cases like this. I do think, however, that the Lord Advocate in framing this Bill should have had regard, before drafting it, to cases like this. I am surprised he has brought this in by way of an Amendment and am more surprised that he should have described it as merely a drafting Amendment.

If I may reply to the surprising speech made by the hon. Gentleman, I would only say that if he had taken care to read the Bill, he would have seen that we had repealed this section in the repeal section of the Bill and it is being incorporated in this particular part of the Bill for convenience.

Amendment agreed to.