§ David CairnsTo ask the Advocate-General what criteria she takes into account in deciding to intervene in devolution issues; and what consideration she gives to the cost to public funds. [30556]
The Advocate-GeneralThe vast majority of cases to date have involved human rights issues. The reasons for intervention will vary according to the circumstances and the criteria are not rigid. In considering intervention I always have very much in mind the need to avoid unnecessary delay in criminal proceedings and the cost of intervention to the public purse. I have taken the view that intervention should not be a routine matter. I might for instance intervene where the case raises human rights issues of serious concern to the Government and I am satisfied that these are more likely to be resolved satisfactorily with my intervention. Experience has shown that the vast majority of devolution issues are disposed of satisfactorily by the courts, without any need for my intervention and consequent public expense. Where cases reach the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, intervention is particularly apt because that is the final authority. But even in these cases my intervention may not be necessary. My role as Advocate-General is not to1126W intervene in cases at any level, at significant public expense, merely because there is an interesting legal point being debated.
§ Mr. CarmichaelTo ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions she has raised proceedings in the Scottish courts on a devolution issue since the creation of her office. [29335]
The Advocate-GeneralI have not been responsible for the raising of any devolution issue proceedings in the Scottish courts. All issues concerning the competence of the actings of the Scottish Parliament, or the Scottish Ministers, have been resolved without any need for me to instigate court actions.