Chamber
Plenary, 02 Mar 2000
02 Mar 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
European Convention on Human Rights
I do not doubt that sheriffs principal are doing their very best, but it is clear from the figures that, in many jurisdictions, they are doing a juggling act. In some parts of Scotland, the situation is causing real problems.
I know that some organisations and agencies have started to look at the problem. I know that the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) has set up a working group to consider the likely implications of ECHR on police practices and procedures. I do not know how far it has got, or what specifically is being examined—I know no more about that than I do about any of the detail of what the Executive is or is not doing.
Frankly, bland reassurances are no longer adequate. People are beginning to lose trust. There are concerns about confidence that must be addressed. When I hear the phrase "compliant with ECHR", I no longer have confidence that it will turn out to be compliant. We know that more than 300 challenges have been made under the ECHR in the past nine months. I had understood only eight to have been upheld. Perhaps Pauline McNeill, my colleague on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, knows more than I do and the figure has gone up. We can be certain that the figures for challenges and successes will increase markedly over the coming months and years.
I am alarmed at the First Minister's view. Two weeks ago, he made it clear in the debate on the Lord Advocate's resignation that the Executive's attitude is to sit back and wait for challenges and to wait for the outcome. It should come as no great surprise that such a laid-back attitude is not getting a great deal of admiration from those who think that responsibility in this area should be about avoiding challenges, and particularly about avoiding ending up in court.
Some challenges are inevitable and some will inevitably be successful. I have said repeatedly—and say again—that the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland, set, as it is, at eight years old, is almost certain to be challenged sooner or later and will have to be changed. Is a change being considered? If not, why not? It is not good enough to wait for a challenge, which we can be sure will come at a point of maximum controversy, so that, instead of being able to take a decision calmly, we will end up in one of those great tabloid brouhahas.
I know that some organisations and agencies have started to look at the problem. I know that the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) has set up a working group to consider the likely implications of ECHR on police practices and procedures. I do not know how far it has got, or what specifically is being examined—I know no more about that than I do about any of the detail of what the Executive is or is not doing.
Frankly, bland reassurances are no longer adequate. People are beginning to lose trust. There are concerns about confidence that must be addressed. When I hear the phrase "compliant with ECHR", I no longer have confidence that it will turn out to be compliant. We know that more than 300 challenges have been made under the ECHR in the past nine months. I had understood only eight to have been upheld. Perhaps Pauline McNeill, my colleague on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, knows more than I do and the figure has gone up. We can be certain that the figures for challenges and successes will increase markedly over the coming months and years.
I am alarmed at the First Minister's view. Two weeks ago, he made it clear in the debate on the Lord Advocate's resignation that the Executive's attitude is to sit back and wait for challenges and to wait for the outcome. It should come as no great surprise that such a laid-back attitude is not getting a great deal of admiration from those who think that responsibility in this area should be about avoiding challenges, and particularly about avoiding ending up in court.
Some challenges are inevitable and some will inevitably be successful. I have said repeatedly—and say again—that the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland, set, as it is, at eight years old, is almost certain to be challenged sooner or later and will have to be changed. Is a change being considered? If not, why not? It is not good enough to wait for a challenge, which we can be sure will come at a point of maximum controversy, so that, instead of being able to take a decision calmly, we will end up in one of those great tabloid brouhahas.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The first item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist party debate on motion S1M-610, in the name of David McLetchie, on the European convention...
David McLetchie (Lothians) (Con):
Con
Thank you, Presiding Officer.At the outset of my speech, I wish to clarify what this debate is about and what we are seeking to achieve with our motion. It i...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
Was not 1988 during the period of the Conservative Government, when that Government was responsible for ensuring that its legislation complied with ECHR?
David McLetchie:
Con
Robert Brown's history is correct, but I return to what I said at the outset—this debate is about mechanisms. Under the previous system, a challenge to secti...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
Will David McLetchie confirm that all he has outlined is a series of possible challenges and suggestions from academics that measures may be contrary to ECHR...
David McLetchie:
Con
Yes, I am prepared to accept those figures, but there could well be 340 specious charges. Lawyers are creative people when it comes to furthering the interes...
The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace):
LD
First, I welcome this debate and thank Mr McLetchie and his party for giving the Parliament an opportunity to discuss an important and topical issue. Human r...
David McLetchie:
Con
Will the minister accept that, in the legislation on the armed forces disciplinary code, Westminster is taking action in anticipation of the need to bring ou...
Mr Wallace:
LD
I am grateful to Mr McLetchie for that question, because this is a case not of either/or but of both/and. There will be occasions where it is important—for e...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
I would like to say at the outset that the Scottish National party starts from a position of unequivocally supporting the incorporation of the European conve...
David McLetchie:
Con
On the incorporation of ECHR, we opposed the Human Rights Act 1998 because the issue is the relationship between the convention and our domestic law. The cur...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
I hear what Mr McLetchie is saying, but the Conservatives' tone is one of grudging acceptance of a situation which most of us have welcomed. I sometimes wish...
Mr Jim Wallace:
LD
I hear what Roseanna Cunningham is saying. However, she mentioned that civil cases include custody and access cases. Will she accept that sheriffs principal ...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
I do not doubt that sheriffs principal are doing their very best, but it is clear from the figures that, in many jurisdictions, they are doing a juggling act...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan ) (Lab):
Lab
It is all very well to say that such a change should be anticipated, but what age would Roseanna Cunningham set to ensure that it conforms to ECHR? Surely we...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
It is inevitable that Gordon Jackson would ask that question. The truth is that once we decide that eight years old is not acceptable, we need to start the p...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab):
Lab
For five minutes, I was enjoying myself, listening to Roseanna Cunningham. I was agreeing with her, and I say to David McLetchie that I share her disappointm...
David McLetchie:
Con
In relation to the certification of compatibility of ministers, does Gordon Jackson believe that a one-line certificate of compliance is sufficient for this ...
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
I understand what Mr McLetchie means, but the difficulty with having the full legal advice analysed is that two lawyers will give two opinions, three lawyers...
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
Does Gordon Jackson think that, if the age of criminal responsibility was set at eight, it would survive a challenge?
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
My honest opinion is that it would not have a snowball's chance in summer of surviving a challenge. However, the fact that I do not think that the proposal t...
David McLetchie:
Con
Would Gordon Jackson accept that the previous legal relationship between this country and the convention resulted in changes to our law? I am making the poin...
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
Of course that is right. It means that things are done more quickly. That is, however, far outweighed by the advantage for the citizen in having a matter res...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
The debate is now open. Speeches should last about four minutes; I will allow an additional minute or so for interventions.
Mrs Lyndsay McIntosh (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
I am the first non-lawyer to speak. I do not get paid by the minute, so I will be brief.As has been said, we support the Government's aim of protecting the r...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab):
Lab
I was fascinated to gain an insight into Roseanna Cunningham's surgeries—surgeries in rural Scotland are clearly very different from those in urban Scotland....
Mrs McIntosh:
Con
Will the member take an intervention?
Hugh Henry:
Lab
No, I am about to finish. I want to echo Jim Wallace's point that the promotion of a human rights culture in Scotland is fundamental. We must respect human r...
Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
For a fleeting moment during Gordon Jackson's speech, I was of the mind that the problem is not with the ECHR, but with lawyers. We might not be having today...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
First, I must declare an interest in respect of my membership of the Law Society of Scotland, and my legal consultancy with Ross, Harper and Murphy—not least...