§ 40. Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Lord Advocate if he will implement the recommendation of the Law Society of Scotland, that a Ministry of Justice be established in Scotland.
§ The Lord AdvocateAll the recommendations made by the Law Society of 440 Scotland in its memorandum on devolution will be carefully considered. The recommendation referred to in the Question is one of particular interest. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, what the Law Society is proposing is that a Department of Legal Affairs should be set up under a Minister who would be a member of the Scottish Executive and responsible to the Scottish Assembly. In the Government's view, the decision whether or not to implement this proposal will fall properly to the scottish Administration, and accordingly no question of implementation by Her Majesty's Government can arise.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI thank the Lord Advocate for his reply. Is he aware that the Law Commission of Scotland has already recommended that a Ministry of Justice or Department of Legal Affairs should be established in Scotland in order to help harmonise Scots law with EEC law, and will he give this proposal full consideration in due course?
§ The Lord AdvocateYes, Sir.
§ Mr. David SteelDoes the Lord Advocate accept that one of the advantages of setting up a Ministry of Justice in Scotland should be that there would be more adequate machinery to allay public anxiety in cases where there may have been a miscarriage of justice?
Has the Lord Advocate studied the book by my constituent, Mr. Kennedy, on the case of Patrick Meehan, about which there is now great anxiety, and will he now agree to an inquiry into that case?
§ The Lord AdvocateIt is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman, who should know better, has combined these two questions. I do not propose to answer the latter question, because it is not one for me.
Concerning the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I should have thought that it would be quite wrong to suggest that there is anything inherently wrong with the present arrangements for the administration of justice in Scotland.
§ Mr. FairbairnIt may have been wrong for the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) to raise the matter, but perhaps I may ask the 441 Lord Advocate this question: if it is his view, as he has stated, that Patrick Meehan was guilty of the offence of which he was found guilty, why does he not prosecute Ian Waddell, who, without question, is attempting to pervert the course of justice by making false claims?
§ The Lord AdvocateThe hon. and learned Gentleman has already asked me a Question to that effect, which I have answered.