Hansard

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 will give three opinions and so on. The danger is that this chamber would be turned into a kind of court where those members who were lawyers would endlessly debate the legal niceties while everyone else went for a cup of tea.

Mr McLetchie said that Scotland was being used as a guinea pig. That is not fair. Scotland has a brand-new constitutional settlement. It would therefore be odd if this new legislative body were not obliged to act in conformity with the convention, particularly since that convention will apply to the whole of the UK in a few months. The alternative is that we legislate and then review everything that we have legislated on when the convention comes into force. That would be daft and we would be criticised for a lack of preparedness.

I agree 100 per cent with something that Roseanna Cunningham said: Westminster is out of step on this matter. Westminster politicians have an obsession with the sovereignty of Parliament, which is an old-fashioned view that should be changed. We are doing things in the way in which the rest of the world is doing things. In my view—I have no idea of the view of the Government—Westminster is out of step.

Roseanna criticised the Executive and said that there has been no preparation or, at best, inadequate preparation. That is not fair. Mr Wallace and the Lord Advocate can defend themselves, but the Crown Office is an example of preparedness. In 1998, it had a working party of full-time staff producing what has become the equivalent of a book—and not a bedside read either. Many recommendations have been implemented and every procurator fiscal has been trained properly in advance of the change. It is unfair to say that the Lord Advocate and his predecessors have not taken the matter seriously. Roseanna Cunningham says that there should be more transparency about the process. There might be something in that, but that does not mean that there has been no proper preparation.

It has been suggested that we should have audited the whole system. Again, Jim Wallace has told us what has been done in that area. The problem is that the auditing process to take the change into account is never-ending. It is a massive and mind-boggling exercise. Given the amount of law that there is, it is physically impossible to cover every possibility. The fact that it is impossible to anticipate every challenge and audit every piece of law makes it unfair to criticise the Executive on that basis.

What comes across most strongly in the press and in debate is the idea that the courts are in crisis because of this. David McLetchie used the word chaos, although Roseanna Cunningham said that she would not go so far. I am not complacent. I have spent my whole working life in the court, and I have many criticisms of the court process. However, this chaos theory is way over the top. There are problems and there is room for improvement, but to paint a picture of a meltdown scenario is to mislead the public.

The picture is now painted all over the country, in Perth or wherever, that people cannot get justice any more and that the system is breaking down. That is simply not true. If members go out into the country, to Perth or to Cupar, they will find justice being administered day in, day out. There is no more chaos than the normal everyday difficulties of running a court. I agree that there is room for improvement, but the reality is not the kind of meltdown scenario that people are talking about.

We have been provided with the figures: 374 challenges and 50 cases pending, of which 10 have been successful. Some issues have a high profile, such as that of temporary sheriffs. That matter was considered, it was decided that temporary sheriffs were a bad idea and they were swept away. I was delighted, as I always thought that they were a bad idea for reasons that had nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. Their number was increased for 18 years, under the Conservative Administration, which I thought was a bad idea. The fact that changes require to be made is not something to worry about.

As has been pointed out, the road traffic challenge is under appeal, and I leave the detail of that. However, let us say that Colin Boyd's appeal fails—as, on occasions, appeals do, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Such challenges and reviews are inevitable: for my money, that is how it should be. The whole point of introducing this legislation is to change those aspects of our past legal system that need to be changed. I can see nothing wrong with that, and it is impossible to deal with every potential change in advance. Jim Wallace is right—the situation is not one of either/or, but of both—and often the answer will not be very clear.

I was not being facetious when I asked Roseanna Cunningham what age she would choose for criminal responsibility, as that is a difficult decision to make. Whatever age is chosen, it will be reviewed through the courts anyway. Whether it is 10, 12 or 14, it will still go through that process. Sometimes it is necessary to wait for the court's response.