Devolution Issues (Hansard, 27 April 2004)

§ 14. Ann McKechin (Glasgow, Maryhill) (Lab)
What devolution issues she has considered since 16 March. [167042]

§ 15. Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
What devolution issues have been raised with her since 16 March. [167043]

§ 16. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
What devolution issues have been raised with her since 16 March. [167044]

§ 17. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con)
What devolution issues she has considered since 16 March. [167045]

§ The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark)
Since 16 March, there have been 55 devolution issues intimated to me. Forty-six of these related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay and self-incrimination in the context of road traffic offences and the breach of sea fishing legislation. Nine devolution issues related to evil matters including two actions for damages in relation to prison conditions, judicial review by a patient detained in terms of the mental health legislation and an appeal to the parking appeals service.

§ Ann McKechin
Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on the decision taken yesterday against the 741 Scottish Executive on the practice of slopping out in prisons and on the implications of that under the human rights legislation?

The Advocate-General
That is one of the devolution issues to which I referred. It involves an action for damages in relation to prison conditions and it has been determined by a single judge. As tile case is still within the reclaiming days for appeal, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the legal implications.

§ Mr. Reid
In response to my question at the last Question Time about the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, the Advocate-General said that there were one or two obvious problems with it, but she did not elaborate on what those problems were. Could she give the House the benefit of her legal expertise and advise us what she sees as the legal problems with the Bill?

The Advocate-General
As I suggested, it is not really for me to give free legal advice but, in the spirit of helpfulness, I point out that, unless there have been any recent changes, there appears to be a drafting error in clause 4(5) of the Bill, which purports to amend section 7(2) of the Scotland Act 1998. Section 7(2) deals with the calculation of regional figures for registered political parties in the regional lists and is concerned with elections. The Bill, however, is concerned with fishing. There may have been a mistake and the Bill's provision might be meant to deal with one of the schedules but, having had a look at the Bill, all I can say is that it does seem to contain one or two little problems.
The Bill may also be problematic on a more major issue. It is my understanding that the Bill is designed to amend the reservation on international relations, so as to devolve the negotiation of international instruments that deal with fishery matters. That involves a fairly broad sweep of issues. As I say, it is not really my job to provide an analysis of the Bill hut, in the spirit of helpfulness, I throw these comments into the arena.

§ Mr. Carmichael
Does the Advocate-General agree that, if and when we get the supreme court, it will be of great importance that measures are taken to ensure that cases coming to that court from Scotland are heard by a Bench guaranteed to include Scottish-qualified judges? What steps is she taking to ensure that?

The Advocate-General
Under the existing arrangements in the House of Lords, the convention has generally been to have Scottish judges sitting in appeals that originate in Scotland, but not all such appeals are concerned with Scots law; on occasion they concern only UK statute. Under those arrangements it would be a matter for one of the judges to determine who was to sit and what qualifications they should have. Plainly, those in the lead Department who ate considering these matters are aware of the desire for judges qualified in Scots law to be in the supreme court, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be the case. The practical arrangements as to who sits in what case in the supreme court are not a matter for me; indeed, they are a matter for the judges themselves, as they are at the moment.

§ Miss McIntosh
At our last exchange, last month, the hon. and learned Lady announced a review and revision 742 of the 110-day rule. Why is that matter under examination? Is it to do with the failure of the Procurator Fiscal Service to bring evidence to trial in time?

The Advocate-General
As the hon. Lady knows, that is entirely a matter for the devolved Scottish Parliament. It initiated a review under Lord Bonomy, who proposed certain changes to the 110-day rule; for example, to ensure that people could not be set free because of problems in hearing cases which arise from circumstances that were not envisaged when the 110-day rule first came into operation. That is entirely a devolved matter, and I am sure that the devolved Administration will take the hon. Lady's comments into account.