---

Devolution

15. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): What devolution issues she has considered since 7 September. [192858]

16. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): What human rights issues she has considered since 7 September. [192859]

18. Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): What devolution issues she has considered since 7 September. [192861]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 7 September, 58 devolution issues have been intimated to me, all of which raised human rights issues. Twenty-nine devolution issues related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self-incrimination, the use of temporary judges and sentencing by a temporary sheriff in 1999. In the civil sphere, 29 issues were intimated to me, almost all of which concerned personal injury actions in respect of prison conditions.

Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. and learned Lady give some advice to the planning authority of the Scottish Executive to ensure that the local decisions about wind farms by those who have to live near them in rural parts of Scotland are respected?

The Advocate-General for Scotland: I know of the hon. Lady's interest in wind farms, but the planning authority would be surprised if I gave it legal advice. Such advice will come from its own local lawyers. The Scottish Executive have Law Officers, who advise them.

Mr. Carmichael: What is the Advocate-General doing in government to promote freedom of information?

The Advocate-General for Scotland: One of my lawyers is actively involved in giving advice about that. I believe that that constitutes a promotion.

Mr. Reid: At the previous Question Time, the Advocate-General told hon. Members that responsibility for defending any action that is brought in the European Court to allege that the Government were in breach of their treaty obligations to provide a Gaelic television channel would lie with the Government, not the Scottish Executive. What chance does the Advocate-General believe the Government would have of succeeding in defending such an action?

The Advocate-General for Scotland: An excellent chance. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter again because it is complex and my answer was short because of time limits. I am happy to speak or write to him about the matter.
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1282
 

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue in the context of devolution. As he probably understands, if a litigant alleges, for example, that Government action was in breach of European law, and that the charter was part of the corpus of European law, there would technically be a procedural route through the courts. However, as I understand it, the charter is part of international, not European, law and the defence would therefore be good. The issue is complex and I am more than happy to discuss it further.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) (Lab): What is the legal position if the decision of a United Kingdom regulatory body, for example, Ofgem, makes it impossible for the devolved Executive to deliver a policy such as the targets on renewable energy?

The Advocate-General for Scotland: It all depends on the circumstances. As my right hon. Friend realises, I am not here just to give ad hoc advice about hypothetical issues.

Prisons

19. Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): How many representations she has received regarding prison conditions in Scotland. [192862]

The Advocate-General for Scotland: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my response in relation to previous questions on devolution issues, when I advised that 29 devolution issues were intimated in respect of prison conditions. No representations as such have been made regarding prison conditions, but generally prison conditions are a matter for the Scottish Executive.

Bob Spink: Her Majesty's Opposition Front-Bench team are prepared to press for more prison building in Scotland if that is necessary. Will the Advocate-General for Scotland do the same?

The Advocate-General for Scotland: I am pleased to say that I am not responsible for Her Majesty's Opposition.

DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—

Judicial Decisions

20. Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) (Lab): If the Secretary of State will bring forward proposals for a review commission to undertake scrutiny of judicial decisions. [193527]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): If a party in a court case believes that a judge's decision is wrong, they can seek recourse through the judicial process by appealing to a higher court. Because the
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1283
 
Government believe in upholding that system, we have no plans to establish any additional review commission for judicial decisions.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. As he may be aware, however, I have a constituent who has been involved in protracted litigation for some 12 years now, which has been brought against him and allowed to go forward by judges, despite a judge in the Court of Appeal on one occasion criticising the judge in the lower court for allowing the litigation to go ahead. Yet my constituent's only redress is to take the matter to a higher court, which involves the expense of lawyers. Indeed, he now has difficulty in obtaining legal representation and is almost at the point of bankruptcy. Surely there should be some mechanism whereby such decisions of the judiciary can be investigated.

Mr. Leslie: I understand my hon. Friend's point. If there are administrative issues involved in the case, I would be happy to consider those separately, but I hope that he understands the fundamental principle involved in ensuring that there is not political interference in specific judicial decisions. That is a fundamental cornerstone of our constitution. That being said, the judiciary has its own processes—not least the appeal system—for being held accountable for the decisions that it makes in public. Mistakes and so forth are visible in that. Only 1.3 per cent. of Crown court disposals in 2002 ended up being overturned on appeal, however, so by and large we have a good system in this country.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Although I support the Under-Secretary on this point, this proposal needs to be considered with great caution. It is one thing to review judicial decisions to examine whether law may be going wrong, but another to review judicial decisions to put pressure on judges. The plain fact is that this House is an inadequate defender of human, civil and political rights, and we must look to the judiciary to perform that role for us.

Mr. Leslie: Before too much harmony breaks out on both sides of the Chamber, I should say that I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course, we have tried hard to enshrine in statute law, among other things, the importance of human rights and the rights of individuals in this country, which are then justiciable and can be supported through the courts. We have that process for a very good reason.

Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): The Criminal Justice Act 2003 established a new Sentencing Guidelines Council to take over the Court of Appeal's responsibility for issuing sentencing guidelines for judges. In the light of public interest and concern over sentencing policy, not least over the 2,000 early-release prisoners who have committed crimes while being electronically tagged, can the Minister please advise the House as to why the council has to date issued only two draft sentencing guidelines? Can he also advise us of the proposed process of parliamentary scrutiny to be adopted in reviewing those and future draft guidelines?

Mr. Leslie: In many ways, the hon. Gentleman's question was answered by that of the right hon. and
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1284
 
learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Of course, we in Parliament support and write the laws of the land, which have within them the potential penalties for criminal offences and illegality.

The Sentencing Guidelines Council is a new body, which has not been sitting for long. The Lord Chief Justice has already issued the guidelines to which the hon. Gentleman referred. A dialogue is taking place between Ministers and the judiciary, and the concordat supports that. We can of course be held to account for our part in the dialogue.

---