:00:18. > :00:23.Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the
:00:23. > :00:26.programme: Ed Miliband turns up the heat on the energy providers as he
:00:26. > :00:33.promises to freeze bills if he becomes PM. The Electoral Commission
:00:34. > :00:37.urge the two camps to strike a deal about what exactly happens after the
:00:37. > :00:40.independence referendum. And plans to remove corroboration
:00:40. > :00:45.from criminal trials are questioned by opposition MSPs.
:00:45. > :00:52.Hello. Ed Miliband wants to be on your side. That is why he wants to
:00:52. > :00:54.freeze your energy bill. Did he expect the full-scale onslaught from
:00:54. > :00:59.the energy companies which followed the announcement? Possibly. They are
:00:59. > :01:03.threatening black-outs, job losses and a move away from the UK market.
:01:03. > :01:09.Here is what Mr Miliband had to say in his leader's speech yesterday in
:01:09. > :01:20.Brighton. We have got to take on what holds
:01:20. > :01:24.our economy back. In the 1990s, be committed to a dynamic market
:01:24. > :01:31.economy. Think of those words. Dynamic market economy. And think
:01:31. > :01:37.about this. What happens when competition fails? What happens when
:01:37. > :01:43.it fails again and again and again? Then government has to act. Train
:01:43. > :01:49.companies that put the daily commute out of reach. Payday lenders who
:01:49. > :01:56.forced people into unpayable debt. Gas and electric companies that put
:01:56. > :01:59.prices up and up and up. It is not good for an economy. It is not a
:01:59. > :02:04.dynamic market economy when one section of society does so well at
:02:04. > :02:09.the expense of others. It is bad for families, is on us and for Britain.
:02:09. > :02:16.Some people will blame the companies. I do not think the blame
:02:16. > :02:21.lies there, it lies with government. For not having had the strength to
:02:21. > :02:28.take it on, not having stood up to the powerful interests. Not having
:02:28. > :02:33.had the strength to stand up for the strong. Take the gas and electric
:02:33. > :02:38.and police. We need successful energy companies in Britain. We need
:02:38. > :02:40.them to invest for the future. But you need to get a fair deal. And
:02:40. > :02:46.frankly, there will never be public you need to get a fair deal. And
:02:46. > :02:51.consent for that investment unless you do get a fair deal. And the
:02:51. > :02:59.system is broken and we are going to fix it. If we win that election, in
:02:59. > :03:00.2015, the next Labour government will freeze gas and electricity
:03:00. > :03:32.prices until the start of 2017. Your bills will not rise, it will
:03:32. > :03:36.benefit millions of families and millions of businesses. That is what
:03:36. > :03:43.I mean by a government that fights for you, that is what I mean when I
:03:43. > :03:49.say it can do better than less! -- Britain.
:03:49. > :03:55.The companies are not going to like this because it will cost them
:03:55. > :03:59.more. But they have been overcharging people for too long
:03:59. > :04:05.because of a market that does not work. It is time to reset the
:04:05. > :04:10.market. So we will pass legislation in our first year in office to do
:04:10. > :04:14.that. And have a regulator that will genuinely be on the side of the
:04:14. > :04:23.customers but also enabled the investment we need. That is how
:04:23. > :04:26.Britain will do better than less. I am joined for the duration of the
:04:26. > :04:33.programme by our political commentator, Dr Gerry Hassan. Good
:04:33. > :04:38.afternoon. Let's look at the pure politics of this, what is Ed
:04:38. > :04:45.Miliband trying to do in terms of positioning? This is possibly very
:04:45. > :04:50.significant. We know Ed Miliband can do good speeches but there is a
:04:50. > :04:54.significant shift from last year and the one nation Labour which did not
:04:55. > :05:00.have detail and was a general big picture and abstract. This is quite
:05:00. > :05:03.detailed and it is breaking ground significantly with the Westminster
:05:03. > :05:08.consensus and the legacy of new Labour. And it is breaking with the
:05:08. > :05:13.legacy of Ed Miliband as energy secretary. A large part of this
:05:13. > :05:19.market in terms of green pricing and so one was made by Ed Miliband when
:05:20. > :05:25.Labour were in government. So it is interesting he has to make that
:05:25. > :05:30.break from his past political life. They have taken that as a calculated
:05:30. > :05:36.risk. The Daily Mail and the day we tell it rough today have opened up
:05:36. > :05:41.the fuel we of the Tory press -- the daily Telegraph. He will get accused
:05:41. > :05:46.of being a flip-flop next week and in the general election. The
:05:46. > :05:54.reaction from the energy companies has been extraordinary. JP Morgan,
:05:54. > :05:58.research from them is saying people should not invest in British energy
:05:58. > :06:03.companies because of the scale of this announcement and the energy
:06:03. > :06:08.companies seem furious. They do. And some of this jury is because Ed
:06:08. > :06:12.Miliband has broken the Westminster consensus that new Labour were part
:06:12. > :06:17.of and labour under his leadership have not broken with until now. So
:06:17. > :06:30.when you break political ground, you risk challenging all kinds of vested
:06:30. > :06:33.interests. This has been accused of being anti-business. They need to do
:06:33. > :06:38.their preparatory work because they will get more of this. I do not know
:06:38. > :06:44.if they have factored that in, it will be like this until the 2015 UK
:06:44. > :06:48.election. We will move on but we will speak to you later. One of
:06:48. > :06:51.Scotland's senior judges has come under fire over plans to scrap the
:06:51. > :06:54.requirement for corroboration in criminal trials. That is the
:06:54. > :06:58.centuries-old rule for evidence in court cases to come from two
:06:58. > :07:01.sources. MSPs took turns to grill Lord Carloway, but he suggested the
:07:01. > :07:10.move could result in more prosecutions.
:07:10. > :07:15.Fundamentally, the reason why I recommended the change in relation
:07:15. > :07:22.to corroboration is because Scotland is the only country in the civilised
:07:22. > :07:28.world, and by that I am including the whole of Western Europe and the
:07:28. > :07:33.Commonwealth countries, it is the only country that has a rule
:07:33. > :07:37.requiring corroboration. That is the fundamental reason I am recommending
:07:37. > :07:43.the change, because it is my view that what it is doing in this
:07:43. > :07:48.country is not producing -- reducing incidences of miscarriage of justice
:07:48. > :07:54.in a narrow sense, but it is creating it in the broader sense in
:07:54. > :07:56.that perfectly widget at cases are not being prosecuted in
:07:56. > :08:03.circumstances where there would be a conviction -- legitimate cases. And
:08:03. > :08:05.that is because of this rule. We looked at other countries and that
:08:05. > :08:09.was a main driver for the recommendation that Scotland must
:08:10. > :08:16.change to bring itself into line with modern thinking on criminal
:08:16. > :08:19.justice. In connection with other countries which do not have
:08:19. > :08:23.corroboration, the argument has been made that in those countries, there
:08:23. > :08:32.are a number of safeguards against unsafe conviction. This bill has
:08:32. > :08:35.only gone with one which was an increase to a two thirds majority
:08:35. > :08:40.for a guilty verdict, it has not looked at other things, the forms of
:08:40. > :08:46.safeguards that may exist in other countries. Can you comment on
:08:46. > :08:54.whether the bill contains the dash-mac -- sufficient safeguards if
:08:54. > :08:57.corroboration is abolished? I do not consider the abolition of the
:08:57. > :09:01.requirement of corroboration requires any rebalancing of the
:09:01. > :09:06.system by the introduction of further safeguards. I think I made
:09:06. > :09:13.that relatively clear in my report. I did not regard this... Because of
:09:13. > :09:17.the fundamental view it is not causing, it would not cause
:09:17. > :09:23.miscarriage of justice of the type we are discussing in the narrow
:09:23. > :09:27.sense of something going wrong in the trial process, I did not
:09:27. > :09:33.consider it was necessary to introduce any safeguards. It is
:09:33. > :09:38.being steam-rollered through, at the Cabinet Secretary agrees with it, we
:09:38. > :09:46.have a majority governorates -- government. Allow some of us to have
:09:46. > :09:49.different views, please. The potential is that on your say-so and
:09:49. > :09:53.when you are speaking, forgive me, potential is that on your say-so and
:09:53. > :10:03.but an old Scottish phrase comes into mind... The legal system, the
:10:03. > :10:08.criminal system is not having it you widely considered and that is a
:10:09. > :10:12.travesty. -- having its view. It is not for me to decide if the law
:10:12. > :10:16.should be changed, that is for Parliament. I am not attempting to
:10:16. > :10:23.steam roller anybody into doing anything. Would you agree that the
:10:23. > :10:26.new test that the Lord Advocate would put together would need to
:10:26. > :10:30.focus on the credibility of the allegations and the quality of the
:10:30. > :10:34.evidence requiring prosecutors to assess all the available evidence
:10:34. > :10:40.with regard to credibility and reliability? The short answer to
:10:40. > :10:43.that is, yes. They're warm and much more focus on the part of the
:10:43. > :10:49.prosecutors on the quality of material in front of them. -- there
:10:49. > :10:52.will be much more focus. The Criminal Justice Bill is being
:10:52. > :10:55.discussed in the chamber this afternoon as part of a Scottish
:10:55. > :10:58.Conservative Debate, but before the MSPs take their seats, we can speak
:10:58. > :11:03.to two members of the Justice Committee. For the Tories, Margaret
:11:03. > :11:06.Mitchell, and for the SNP, Sandra White. And for Scottish Labour, we
:11:06. > :11:09.have the former Director of the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement
:11:09. > :11:14.Agency, Graeme Pearson. Good afternoon. Sandra White, why is
:11:15. > :11:21.there overwhelming opposition from the legal world to this move? You
:11:21. > :11:27.have to ask the legal world. We had the evidence from the legal world.
:11:27. > :11:33.As I said in the committee, I am not from a regal background, I am from a
:11:33. > :11:36.background that wants to see how we can protect the public. And
:11:36. > :11:40.certainly, there have been members of the public very supportive of not
:11:40. > :11:44.having corroboration but what we have to be certain of is that the
:11:44. > :11:49.evidence is heard in the committee, and that is the most important
:11:49. > :11:52.thing. We are only at stage one of the committee evidence and there is
:11:52. > :11:57.more to here and we will make our minds up then. Everybody 's voice
:11:57. > :12:04.has to be heard, not just the legal side of it. It is good to hear from
:12:04. > :12:08.the public but the legal voices are quite important in this debate. Is
:12:08. > :12:13.it a case of the politicians seeming to know better than the lawyers?
:12:13. > :12:19.Absolutely not. We have got to look at this on the round, this is only
:12:19. > :12:22.one part of the review of the criminal justice system. Legal
:12:22. > :12:26.voices are very important but you have got to remember the general
:12:26. > :12:29.public use the legal system and they have a right to be heard, their
:12:29. > :12:37.voices are just as important as legal voices. Margaret Mitchell, you
:12:37. > :12:42.were being very firm with Lord Carloway in yesterday 's committee.
:12:42. > :12:47.Lord Carloway had his report in November 2011 and this has been well
:12:47. > :12:53.discussed and debated frequently, why is this being steam-rollered
:12:53. > :12:58.through? The opinion given by Lord Carloway is only his view and he
:12:58. > :13:01.made that perfectly clear yesterday. Meanwhile and subsequently, we have
:13:01. > :13:06.had views from various victims organisations, from people who
:13:06. > :13:11.practice in the criminal justice system, from the judiciary, that
:13:11. > :13:16.they are opposed to the abolition of corroboration, which is not the same
:13:16. > :13:22.as saying they are opposed to looking at how it could be improved.
:13:22. > :13:24.That third way was not considered by Lord Carloway during this review,
:13:25. > :13:28.which is why I think it was fundamentally flawed and we should
:13:28. > :13:34.be now looking at a much wider independent review of the issue.
:13:34. > :13:39.When you hear what Lord Carloway has to say about corroboration, that it
:13:39. > :13:43.is archaic, we are the only place in the civilised world that retains
:13:43. > :13:51.its, does it not make you feel it is time to move on?
:13:51. > :14:01.Because something has been around for centuries that does not mean we
:14:01. > :14:07.can abolish it. Corroboration is a -- is at the very heart of our
:14:07. > :14:14.criminal justice system, preventing miscarriages of justice and being
:14:14. > :14:19.used in -- on a daily basis. Graeme Pearson from Labour, you are in the
:14:20. > :14:25.middle of your two colleagues in the middle of this debate, Labour still
:14:25. > :14:30.seems undecided about this. Lord Carloway's report came out two years
:14:30. > :14:36.ago, was this surprising? I don't think so. We are getting to the part
:14:36. > :14:42.when decisions and needs to be taken and we are keeping evidence from all
:14:42. > :14:47.sections affected by these changes. My own situation, I am not
:14:47. > :14:52.particularly worried about if it is ancient, arcane or otherwise. What I
:14:52. > :14:56.want is an effective system of administering justice that works for
:14:56. > :15:01.everyone concerned and I am not convinced of that yet. We must see
:15:01. > :15:05.what checks and balances will be put in place or are we merely fiddling
:15:05. > :15:10.with one part of the process? That will have a detrimental effect on
:15:10. > :15:15.the future. If it will come forward and say this is worse for us than it
:15:15. > :15:20.was previously. I mention you are a former senior breeze officer, how
:15:20. > :15:27.did you find corroboration helped you in your work? There were a
:15:27. > :15:30.number of aspects to it, you are required to get additional evidence
:15:30. > :15:34.to prove your case but it was a good discipline because it ensured gather
:15:34. > :15:38.the evidence that was necessary to bring together a quality case and
:15:38. > :15:45.help to prevent any miscarriages of justice. I was persuaded by what
:15:45. > :15:48.Lord Carloway said about winning the quality of evidence rather than the
:15:48. > :15:52.quantity. Bear in mind that this has been alluded to already, he is the
:15:52. > :15:57.voice of one senator from the College of Justice and the others
:15:57. > :15:59.disagree with him, and even the committee he served on, he was
:15:59. > :16:05.honest enough to see that they did not support him in his view on that
:16:05. > :16:09.matter. Therefore from my viewpoint, it is not solely about
:16:09. > :16:12.corroboration, it is about the impact on Julie numbers, the
:16:12. > :16:15.verdicts available to the Julie and ten witnesses will be dealt with in
:16:15. > :16:24.the court when they IB soul source of evidence. -- impact on the jury
:16:24. > :16:29.numbers. Note SNP colleague, talking about safeguards to be put on the
:16:29. > :16:34.system, this bill only has one safeguard, the simple majority, the
:16:34. > :16:38.two thirds majority for the Julie. Would Margaret Mitchell be happier
:16:38. > :16:45.with more safeguards? Saints I think market wouldn't be happier at all, I
:16:45. > :16:51.think she just wants rid of corroboration. -- I think Margaret
:16:51. > :16:54.wouldn't be happier at all. I think the committee process is so
:16:54. > :16:58.important because we will be taking evidence. We have a very short
:16:58. > :17:02.debate this afternoon but in the committee we can go all the way
:17:02. > :17:06.through and listen to evidence from everyone including the Lord Advocate
:17:06. > :17:11.and other people also. I vaguely with what Graeme Pearson said, it is
:17:11. > :17:14.the quality of the evidence, not the quantity. If you have DNA and
:17:14. > :17:18.fingerprints you should be able to conflict. If you have that type of
:17:18. > :17:23.evidence you should not need to forensic scientists to dilute it is
:17:23. > :17:27.evidence, and that is one of Lord Carloway's report recommendations.
:17:27. > :17:34.Margaret Mitchell from the Conservatives, hearing that, what do
:17:34. > :17:37.you have to say? It seems to be a presumption that we have to get rid
:17:37. > :17:41.of corroboration and the option that has not been tested is to keep and
:17:41. > :17:47.improve corroboration, and DNA is a step forward. There are techniques
:17:47. > :17:51.to make corroboration easier. That is defeating the arguments of those
:17:51. > :17:55.who want to abolish it. Do you believe that we could be at risk of
:17:55. > :18:01.serious miscarriages of justice as corroboration is removed? Yes I do,
:18:01. > :18:05.absolutely. How could that happen? If we do move to another system and
:18:05. > :18:09.there are safeguards in that system while you so sure there would be
:18:09. > :18:13.miscarriages of justice? There are many ifs there, but the first in it
:18:13. > :18:19.could do is boiled in the credibility and possibility of one
:18:19. > :18:23.witness. It being sufficient to conflict, and that is a frightening
:18:23. > :18:26.prospect. Graeme Pearson from Labour, as Sandra Waite was pointing
:18:26. > :18:32.out when we talk about corroboration it is not necessarily that two
:18:32. > :18:37.people can be two sources of evidence. That's right. The
:18:37. > :18:41.important point just made by Sandra is that it is not solely about the
:18:41. > :18:45.cabinet secretary listening, he has been good in the past that
:18:45. > :18:47.listening, what we have to do is act on building some additional
:18:47. > :18:54.safeguards. Corroboration in the current system provide a level check
:18:54. > :19:00.in terms of administering justice, if we remove it then we need to see,
:19:00. > :19:04.what does the Cabinet Secretary decide he wants to put in its place?
:19:04. > :19:10.It is not sufficient just to see the system will work OK, we need to test
:19:10. > :19:13.it before it begins to run. We have to leave it there. Sandra White,
:19:13. > :19:19.Graeme Pearson and Margaret Mitchell, thank you very much.
:19:19. > :19:24.We will call in to that debate in the chamber in just a few minutes.
:19:24. > :19:27.First, in 51 weeks for those keeping count, Scotland goes to the polls as
:19:27. > :19:32.we fought in the independent referendum. What happens immediately
:19:32. > :19:35.afterwards? The electoral commission has been taking soundings from
:19:35. > :19:39.people across Scotland and it seems voters are concerned about how
:19:39. > :19:42.things might pan out. I am joined by the electoral Commissioner for
:19:42. > :19:49.Scotland, John McCormack. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. First of
:19:49. > :19:53.all, what do you want this agreement between the two different
:19:53. > :19:58.governments to say? When it comes to telling people what might happen
:19:58. > :20:03.after the referendum. The Mac we highlighted this for the first time
:20:03. > :20:08.at the end of January. Following our research into the testing of the
:20:08. > :20:11.question we found out that just about everyone we spoke to said they
:20:11. > :20:16.wanted clarity as to what would happen after the referendum day
:20:16. > :20:20.itself and these were people who would vote no on yes or hadn't made
:20:20. > :20:23.up their mind. They wanted to know what would happen afterwards,
:20:23. > :20:29.process rather than the negotiations about independence. We put that as a
:20:29. > :20:32.recommendation to the government, saying that the ideal thing would be
:20:32. > :20:35.a joint statement from the Scottish government and Westminster
:20:35. > :20:39.government about what would happen immediately after referendum day
:20:39. > :20:45.whatever the result. If it was a yes vote, what would happen? If it was a
:20:45. > :20:49.no vote, what would happen? Both governments are discussing that at
:20:49. > :20:53.the moment and there have been dissed -- there have been
:20:53. > :20:55.constructive discussions and they have said that they would like to
:20:55. > :21:01.have their joint statement available by the 20th of September. That is
:21:01. > :21:05.the day we expect the referendum ability -- to achieve Royal assent.
:21:05. > :21:08.Then we have time for clarity and distribution to the people across
:21:08. > :21:14.Scotland some people have a clear idea about what will happen
:21:14. > :21:18.immediately after the referendum. It is really interesting that the two
:21:18. > :21:23.governments may come to an agreement like this because the UK government
:21:23. > :21:27.said they would not be negotiate terms about independence. Do you see
:21:27. > :21:34.that almost as a step towards that? No, this process. It is clearing up
:21:34. > :21:38.some of the time frame, the next steps, people had said to us months
:21:38. > :21:43.ago, the said to us, would it be a general election? Quiz David Cameron
:21:43. > :21:47.still be paying minister for awhile? Would the first minister remain in
:21:47. > :21:51.office? They want reassurance on certain basic point about what would
:21:51. > :21:56.happen. It is clarity about process, not about the terms of independence
:21:56. > :21:59.or the negotiation between the two governments. Here we have two
:21:59. > :22:03.governments on either side of the question as people are being asked
:22:03. > :22:05.to vote on it and saw a joint statement would reassure people that
:22:05. > :22:11.this would be the process immediately after the referendum day
:22:11. > :22:15.and we are very optimistic we will have that joint statement by the end
:22:15. > :22:21.of the year. It will not say a lot, this agreement, or do you have some
:22:21. > :22:24.hope that it made? We are not involved in the discussions, they
:22:24. > :22:28.are taking place between both governments, we're not involved. We
:22:28. > :22:34.will await the outcome. I would not prejudge it. I would not speculate
:22:34. > :22:38.as to what it might contain. We have sought clarity, the people we are
:22:38. > :22:40.representing, we are representing the interests of the voters in the
:22:40. > :22:45.voters have vegetables, and that they would like some clarity about
:22:45. > :22:52.what would happen after the independence referendum. -- voters
:22:53. > :22:56.have said to both governments. We will await the outcome of these
:22:56. > :23:01.discussions. Let's look chiefly at the rest of the process, is the
:23:01. > :23:05.electoral commission happy about what else is happening, particularly
:23:05. > :23:10.with 16 and 17-year-old having the vote? The matter of the franchise
:23:10. > :23:13.being extended to 16 and 17-year-olds as a matter for
:23:13. > :23:18.government, that decision has not been taken by the Scottish
:23:18. > :23:21.government and we are satisfied that the act was passed and received
:23:21. > :23:24.Royal assent on the 7th of August which means that when the annual
:23:24. > :23:27.canvass and the households of Scotland asking people to make sure
:23:27. > :23:31.they are on the electoral register takes place, and that starts next
:23:31. > :23:37.week, that will include a form directed at 16 and 17-year-olds, 15
:23:37. > :23:42.and 16 votes, those who will be 16 or over on the 18th of September.
:23:42. > :23:45.That begins next week. We are satisfied that there is good time
:23:45. > :23:50.for the message to get through to young people about how to register
:23:50. > :23:53.for the referendum. The referendum Bill which is about to start at
:23:53. > :23:57.second stage in the hollowed Parliament, we regard it as a solid
:23:57. > :24:05.good and strong piece of legislation. -- Holyrood parliament.
:24:05. > :24:08.It has clear rules and transparency of funding and regulation and we
:24:08. > :24:12.believe that this referendum Bill which has yet to complete its course
:24:12. > :24:15.is a strong piece of legislation and we will keep an eye on it as it goes
:24:15. > :24:20.through its last stage but became Christmas comes it should be the
:24:20. > :24:25.referendum act and it will underpin a very strong basis for the
:24:25. > :24:29.referendum next year. John MacCormack, we must leave it there.
:24:29. > :24:33.Thank you. Let's just catch up with her
:24:33. > :24:36.political commentator, who is still in the studio. It has been
:24:36. > :24:42.interesting to hear what John, was saying. We are wondering if this was
:24:42. > :24:46.a step towards the negotiation between the governments but it does
:24:46. > :24:50.not sound like that. It is an interesting film, as you see, it is
:24:50. > :24:56.negotiation and citizens negotiation, it depends on what you
:24:56. > :25:00.define as negotiation. As John said, it is about process and timescale.
:25:00. > :25:04.That has a bit of an impact on substance, so the way it shifts
:25:04. > :25:11.things a little bit, any significant direction, towards the government
:25:11. > :25:14.having ignored and of some kind of substance. Further down the line,
:25:14. > :25:18.might we see any other agreements and substance when it comes to the
:25:18. > :25:23.referendum? Or will the UK government wants to leave it at
:25:23. > :25:28.that? The UK government will publicly stick to nobody
:25:28. > :25:32.negotiation, and also the influenced by the fact that they think they
:25:32. > :25:41.will win. -- spec to know the negotiation. There will be small
:25:41. > :25:44.amounts of incremental negotiations. They will have contingency plans and
:25:44. > :25:49.the UK department will be thinking about scenarios, what happens in
:25:49. > :25:54.Scotland becomes independent? It depends on what you think of as
:25:55. > :25:57.negotiation. It was interesting to see what Mr Commack said about
:25:57. > :26:02.public meetings, how people were so concerned about what might happen
:26:02. > :26:05.afterwards, people were asking about the general election, would David
:26:05. > :26:10.Cameron have to resign depending on how the vote went? What did you make
:26:10. > :26:15.of that? We would be in uncharted waters, major unchartered waters if
:26:15. > :26:17.there is a yes vote and most people don't have a widespread political
:26:18. > :26:23.literacy about what all of these things are. People find it diffident
:26:23. > :26:26.-- difficult to differentiate between Parliament and government,
:26:26. > :26:34.for example. Crossing live to the chamber at Holyrood MSP 's are
:26:34. > :26:39.debating abolishing corroboration. John Scott in the chair, inviting
:26:39. > :26:45.the opening of this debate. It is a Conservative motion and here is
:26:45. > :26:49.Margaret Mitchell to speak for the Tories. It was described as an
:26:49. > :26:52.archaic rule that has no place in the modern legal system. This
:26:52. > :26:57.assertion has been repeated continuously on the airwaves and it
:26:57. > :27:00.also contained in the cabinet secretaries Amendment. It is a
:27:00. > :27:05.statement which at the outset of this important debate is whether of
:27:05. > :27:08.-- worthy of further scrutiny. Rather than just being automatically
:27:08. > :27:15.route he did without considering what it means. The dictionary
:27:15. > :27:18.definition of backache is, injured, saving the past and not absolutely
:27:18. > :27:29.obsolete but no in general use. Old-fashioned. Saving the past and
:27:29. > :27:31.old-fashioned mate will be accurate descriptions for corroboration. The
:27:31. > :27:37.remainder of the definition, the care market is an appropriate and
:27:38. > :27:41.inaccurate. -- the care archaic. Corroboration is in practice the
:27:41. > :27:46.principal that far from being absolutely obsolete but no longer in
:27:46. > :27:49.general use is currently just as it has been for centuries at the very
:27:49. > :27:56.heart of the Scottish criminal justice system. One very much in
:27:56. > :28:00.general use on a daily basis where it provides a safeguard against
:28:00. > :28:05.miscarriages of justice and all of the misery that results from this
:28:05. > :28:14.and for complainers and accused alike. Lord Carloway said that he
:28:14. > :28:17.could find no other two distinction in Western Europe or the
:28:17. > :28:23.Commonwealth who have corroboration. Is he wrong or are all of these
:28:23. > :28:26.other jurisdictions wrong? The fact that no other jurisdiction is hazard
:28:26. > :28:32.not sufficient reason to abolish it here. I think that the bizarre
:28:32. > :28:35.argument. The use of the word archaic is not merely a part of its
:28:35. > :28:41.semantics but rather indicative of the superficial debate and arguments
:28:41. > :28:44.that so far dominated the consideration over whether
:28:44. > :28:47.corroboration should be abolished. A debate that up until now had been
:28:48. > :28:53.focused on two polarised views. For and against the abolition. With no
:28:53. > :28:59.consideration of a possible third and better way, worse still has been
:28:59. > :29:02.the attempt to portray this as the vested interests of the legal
:29:02. > :29:07.profession against the rights of victims. This is a gross distortion
:29:07. > :29:11.of the issues at stake as the views of and submissions from a
:29:11. > :29:19.cross-party group on adult Bible 's childhood sexual abuse confirms.
:29:19. > :29:22.Sadly it is one that to the large extent has been encouraged by Lord
:29:22. > :29:26.Carloway himself when he gave evidence to the Justice committee
:29:26. > :29:30.and dismissed views of key stakeholders in the Camel justice
:29:30. > :29:33.system in the form of representatives of the legal
:29:33. > :29:38.profession. -- criminal justice system. These include High Court
:29:38. > :29:42.justices, the Law Society of Scotland, the faculty of advocates
:29:42. > :29:47.who with the Scottish police investigation, the Scottish women's
:29:47. > :29:50.commission and significant -- significantly the cross-party group
:29:50. > :30:00.on adult survivors are all against abolition of corroboration. Would it
:30:00. > :30:06.be possible to find out whether everybody agrees with going to a new
:30:06. > :30:11.verdict, proven and not proven? They will make the position clear, but my
:30:11. > :30:15.view is that if macro to was abolished, it would strengthen the
:30:16. > :30:22.verdict for -- the case for a not proven verdict. Everything needs to
:30:22. > :30:25.be considered, they include a well reasoned and justified comments
:30:26. > :30:31.received by me from the local are socio- and is. One of these
:30:31. > :30:34.respondents pointed out there is an irony in the proposal to remove
:30:34. > :30:39.corroboration on the proposal that to retain it would be to support an
:30:40. > :30:45.archaic principle. When the selfsame government wishes to take Scotland
:30:45. > :30:49.back 300 years with its independence referendum. They went on to stress,
:30:49. > :30:55.without doubt, the removal of corroboration will be to the
:30:55. > :31:00.detriment of our much admired and ancient legal system. Another
:31:00. > :31:03.respondent said, I cannot express in of the great fear that my Parliament
:31:03. > :31:10.'s proposal to remove the requirement for corroboration
:31:10. > :31:14.instils. As a society, I feel this moves as towards the Nazi doctrine,
:31:14. > :31:19.better 1,000 innocent men convicted than a guilty man should go free.
:31:19. > :31:23.Other comments included, I do not accept the argument that simply
:31:23. > :31:29.because it is a feature unique to our system, corroboration has no
:31:29. > :31:33.place in modern times. I consider, as do my colleagues, that the
:31:33. > :31:37.removal of corroboration is a solution arrived at in haste to
:31:37. > :31:43.address two issues in particular. Unanticipated fall in the conviction
:31:43. > :31:47.rate brought about by a declining confessions I legally advised
:31:47. > :31:51.accused, and the perceived need to to increase the conviction rate in
:31:51. > :31:57.relation to crimes committed in private. There are many more equally
:31:57. > :32:01.valid comments, but the final one I want to highlight was this. I have
:32:01. > :32:06.no doubt if corroboration is abolished as proposed by the
:32:06. > :32:09.Scottish government it will lead to many more wrongful convictions. I
:32:09. > :32:14.understand the concern for victims, but what they will do is create a
:32:14. > :32:20.new category of victims. Those who have been rumbly convicted on the
:32:20. > :32:29.basis of one person 's testimony. One of the things which concerns me
:32:29. > :32:34.about this is that the review by Lord Carloway at top 141 sexual
:32:34. > :32:40.offence cases that were dropped between July and December 2010. It
:32:40. > :32:47.found that two thirds, 95 of these cases, would have had a reasonable
:32:47. > :32:51.prospect of conviction without the requirement for corroboration. It is
:32:51. > :32:56.the sexual offences situation that bothers me and the fact that so many
:32:56. > :33:01.cases do not go to trial. I sympathise with that point and
:33:02. > :33:07.perhaps as I develop my argument, I can give him some comfort in this
:33:07. > :33:10.respect. These are meant to represent a clear indication of the
:33:10. > :33:15.strength of feeling against the abolition of corroboration which
:33:15. > :33:20.cannot be locked at in isolation. -- looked at. The requirement must be
:33:21. > :33:25.considered at different points in the requirement to justice -- in the
:33:25. > :33:29.justice system, by the police investigating, the prosecutors, at
:33:29. > :33:33.trial, by the prosecutor and the trial judge, by the jury deciding
:33:33. > :33:39.whether it accepts specific evidence, and at appeal. The fact
:33:39. > :33:44.that no other jury stitch and has the requirement for corroboration is
:33:44. > :33:50.not a reason to sit for its abolition. -- jurisdiction. And
:33:50. > :33:54.their attempt to polarise the debate between those who want to modernise
:33:54. > :33:59.the justice system and those opposed does not stack up. Despite the
:33:59. > :34:04.overwhelming view of the judiciary that corroboration should not be
:34:04. > :34:08.abolished, this is not the same as saying it is not capable of
:34:08. > :34:12.improvement, movement to modernisation, and change for the
:34:12. > :34:19.better. Here, the cross-party group have been very generous. They have
:34:19. > :34:30.been very generous, the cross-party group on survivors, suggests
:34:30. > :34:33.improvement -- improvements which may address the concerns in the
:34:33. > :34:38.Labour amendment expressed by Kevin Stewart this afternoon. These
:34:38. > :34:44.include, wider definitions of corroboration, that baby omitted in
:34:44. > :34:51.cases of rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuse where there is readily
:34:52. > :34:54.unlikely to be a witness but still maintaining fairness to the accused.
:34:54. > :35:01.But the consideration of the introduction of mole circumstantial
:35:01. > :35:05.evidence -- more circumstantial. More systematic and constructive use
:35:05. > :35:11.of expert witnesses, reviewing the application of the time period
:35:11. > :35:15.element. Of the doctrine which has offered the opportunity for justice,
:35:15. > :35:21.for victims of crimes, of violent crimes, where the modus operandi is
:35:21. > :35:30.similar, leading to more flexible marking of cases by the schools. --
:35:30. > :35:35.office schools. They make many more recommendations. But Lord Carloway
:35:35. > :35:39.failed to consider the option for retention of macro to within the
:35:39. > :35:47.context of looking at the law of evidence. -- retention of
:35:47. > :35:53.corroboration. It is this failure that renders his review
:35:53. > :35:58.fundamentally flawed into horns -- in terms of corroboration. So this
:35:58. > :36:04.option together with the option to retain or abolish corroboration
:36:04. > :36:07.should be discussed and subject to a wider review of the law of evidence
:36:07. > :36:12.which should be carried out, including the interaction between a
:36:12. > :36:16.crypto and loss of evidence, either by referral to the Scottish law
:36:16. > :36:21.omission or public enquiry. -- commission. Public enquiry has a
:36:22. > :36:26.broad meaning and there are a number of forms are available, the type
:36:26. > :36:31.suggested would be similar to the commission established under Lord
:36:31. > :36:35.Johnson which carried out a wide ranging examination of Scottish
:36:35. > :36:43.procedure and reduced three reports. In this paper, authors
:36:43. > :36:47.warned never before had sweeping changes to the Scottish criminal
:36:47. > :36:50.system been as a result of a single individual and that the review by
:36:50. > :36:56.Lord Carloway was a model of criminal law reform without recent
:36:56. > :37:01.President. In conclusion, it is totally unacceptable a decision of
:37:01. > :37:04.this magnitude is crammed in with the scrutiny of the criminal
:37:04. > :37:16.Scotland Bill with its miscellaneous provisions. I move the motion.
:37:17. > :37:21.Kenny McAskill, move the amendment. Would you like to orientate your
:37:21. > :37:27.microphone? I welcome the opportunity to respond to this
:37:27. > :37:29.motion under proposal to abolish the requirement for corroboration in
:37:29. > :37:36.criminal cases. This is a long overdue step in ensuring victims
:37:36. > :37:39.have access to justice. The criminal Bill seeks to modernise and improve
:37:39. > :37:43.efficiency in the system and puts Scotland at the forefront of human
:37:43. > :37:49.rights protections for suspects while ensuring victims are not
:37:49. > :37:55.denied justice by outdated rules of evidence. I think it is important to
:37:55. > :38:00.acknowledge we are all working towards the same goal. We want
:38:00. > :38:05.Scotland to have a modern and effective criminal justice system.
:38:05. > :38:09.One fit for purpose in the modern age and which properly balances the
:38:09. > :38:16.rights of individuals and the duties of the state. That is why I ask for
:38:16. > :38:22.a -- for an expert is to be nominated to undertake it criminal
:38:22. > :38:29.review in the immediate aftermath of the subsequent legislation. Lord
:38:29. > :38:33.Carloway rigourously reviewed the key elements of the system and he
:38:33. > :38:37.spent a year consulting and still liberating and he focused his
:38:37. > :38:42.recommendations on how we could best combine the red investigation and
:38:42. > :38:48.prosecution of crime with rigorous and far-sighted human rights
:38:48. > :38:53.protections. The government then conducted a general consultation on
:38:53. > :38:57.his report. And a second consultation on possible additional
:38:57. > :39:02.safeguards following abolition. The provision in the bill to increase
:39:02. > :39:08.the jury majority for a conviction to two thirds is a direct result of
:39:08. > :39:14.consultation and I have also agreed in principle with the Scottish Law
:39:14. > :39:17.commission to review the not proven verdict and I remain open to
:39:17. > :39:23.deliberating whether further safeguards are needed as the Bill
:39:23. > :39:25.progresses. The commission for human rights is
:39:25. > :39:29.against abolition and is he concerned the testimony of one
:39:29. > :39:38.witness could lead to a miscarriage of justice? And the right to a fair
:39:39. > :39:42.trial? Yes, I would have concerns if it would be the testimony of one
:39:42. > :39:47.witness but clear guide nurse -- guidance has been given by the Lord
:39:47. > :39:52.Advocate that that would not be the test and that is simply not going to
:39:52. > :39:57.happen. There would have to be additional evidence. Lord Carloway
:39:57. > :40:01.made it clear it was not quantity but quality of evidence, so that is
:40:01. > :40:05.the position. I remain incomplete agreement with the damning
:40:05. > :40:10.conclusion reached by Lord Carloway who said, the requirement of
:40:10. > :40:14.corroboration should the entirely abolished for all categories of
:40:14. > :40:22.crime. It is an archaic rule that has no place in a modern legal
:40:22. > :40:29.system. The Cabinet Secretary would
:40:30. > :40:33.acknowledge the Senators College of justice is somewhat different in
:40:33. > :40:37.their views and recommendations and to accept solely the recommendations
:40:37. > :40:49.of Lord Carloway is a dangerous way forward? The police, victim support
:40:49. > :40:55.Scotland, rape crisis Scotland, or other institutions have contributed.
:40:55. > :40:59.These matters this -- debated by a national Parliament and not one body
:40:59. > :41:05.has the right to veto, it is a matter of a democratically elected
:41:05. > :41:09.chamber. The law and corrupt -- the war on corroboration has been
:41:09. > :41:11.debated for three years and nobody has identified another system
:41:11. > :41:16.operating a general rule for corroboration. We can positively
:41:16. > :41:22.rule out all of the most directly comparator will jurisdictions, in
:41:22. > :41:27.particular, more systems and all 47 signatories of the European
:41:27. > :41:32.convention on human rights. -- more systems. It guards against
:41:32. > :41:36.miscarriages of justice but Lord Carloway could find no evidence to
:41:36. > :41:41.suggest it does anything of the support -- of the sort, he found
:41:41. > :41:45.evidence the other way, that it stops our court hearing cases that
:41:45. > :41:52.would be tried elsewhere. I can remind the chamber of an
:41:52. > :41:57.intervention made by Kevin Stewart, 67% of those cases would have had a
:41:57. > :42:01.reasonable prospect of conviction -- of conviction without corroboration.
:42:01. > :42:06.The requirement for corroboration has failed Scotland. It was
:42:06. > :42:11.formulated in a different age before matters such as DNA or CCTV. Times
:42:11. > :42:17.have changed. What Lord Carloway was asked to do was -- was a root and
:42:17. > :42:22.ranch review which was logical and thorough. Corroboration in our legal
:42:22. > :42:26.system is a barrier to obtaining justice for the victims of crimes
:42:26. > :42:33.committed in private or when no one else was there.
:42:33. > :42:37.Kenny McAskill speaking in Parliament. Let's get some final
:42:37. > :42:42.thoughts now in the company of our political commentator, Gerry Hassan.
:42:42. > :42:45.Margaret Mitchell was saying in her summary that the abolition of
:42:45. > :42:52.corroboration was crammed in with miscellaneous revisions in the
:42:52. > :43:00.Criminal Justice Bill. Something strange is going on. The review by
:43:00. > :43:04.Lord Carloway was at the end of 2011 and there was procrastination and
:43:04. > :43:09.now an impetus towards a bill, so it does not look like it has a
:43:09. > :43:17.majority. The justice secretary put forward a stout defence, saying it
:43:17. > :43:21.was the quantity, not the quantity but the quality of evidence. Lord
:43:21. > :43:27.Carloway made that point. They are also talking about safeguards but
:43:27. > :43:33.corroboration could be the ultimate safeguard and it seems too much
:43:33. > :43:36.haste and too little consultation, there is significant opposition
:43:36. > :43:43.across the legal profession in Scotland. Significant opposition of
:43:43. > :43:49.people who know this area. It was interesting when we had that debate
:43:49. > :43:52.and I put the point to Sandra White there is this opposition from the
:43:52. > :43:57.legal world but it seems the Scottish government are happy with
:43:57. > :44:02.what they have got. And also, I do not see where this is coming from in
:44:02. > :44:04.terms of what significant miscarriages of justice have
:44:04. > :44:10.happened because of this. The potential, as Margaret Mitchell
:44:10. > :44:13.said, there is the potential for miscarriages of justice if they're
:44:13. > :44:21.less people giving evidence, it is worrying. And there is an issue
:44:21. > :44:26.about the wider issues of legislation. And there was the point
:44:26. > :44:33.about Labour who are looking to see what will happen. He played his
:44:33. > :44:36.cards well and hearing him, and Inc this is presented as a tidying up
:44:36. > :44:40.measure and you could imagine Labour in office doing exactly the same.
:44:40. > :44:46.That is all we have time for this afternoon. We are back in our usual
:44:46. > :44:48.slot at half past two over on BBC Two next week. Thanks for your
:44:49. > :44:54.company this afternoon. Bye for now.