25/09/2013 Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme: Ed Miliband turns up the heat on the energy providers as he

promises to freeze bills if he becomes PM. The Electoral Commission

urge the two camps to strike a deal about what exactly happens after the

independence referendum. And plans to remove corroboration

from criminal trials are questioned by opposition MSPs.

Hello. Ed Miliband wants to be on your side. That is why he wants to

freeze your energy bill. Did he expect the full-scale onslaught from

the energy companies which followed the announcement? Possibly. They are

threatening black-outs, job losses and a move away from the UK market.

Here is what Mr Miliband had to say in his leader's speech yesterday in

Brighton. We have got to take on what holds

our economy back. In the 1990s, be committed to a dynamic market

economy. Think of those words. Dynamic market economy. And think

about this. What happens when competition fails? What happens when

it fails again and again and again? Then government has to act. Train

companies that put the daily commute out of reach. Payday lenders who

forced people into unpayable debt. Gas and electric companies that put

prices up and up and up. It is not good for an economy. It is not a

dynamic market economy when one section of society does so well at

the expense of others. It is bad for families, is on us and for Britain.

Some people will blame the companies. I do not think the blame

lies there, it lies with government. For not having had the strength to

take it on, not having stood up to the powerful interests. Not having

had the strength to stand up for the strong. Take the gas and electric

and police. We need successful energy companies in Britain. We need

them to invest for the future. But you need to get a fair deal. And

frankly, there will never be public you need to get a fair deal. And

consent for that investment unless you do get a fair deal. And the

system is broken and we are going to fix it. If we win that election, in

2015, the next Labour government will freeze gas and electricity

prices until the start of 2017. Your bills will not rise, it will

benefit millions of families and millions of businesses. That is what

I mean by a government that fights for you, that is what I mean when I

say it can do better than less! -- Britain.

The companies are not going to like this because it will cost them

more. But they have been overcharging people for too long

because of a market that does not work. It is time to reset the

market. So we will pass legislation in our first year in office to do

that. And have a regulator that will genuinely be on the side of the

customers but also enabled the investment we need. That is how

Britain will do better than less. I am joined for the duration of the

programme by our political commentator, Dr Gerry Hassan. Good

afternoon. Let's look at the pure politics of this, what is Ed

Miliband trying to do in terms of positioning? This is possibly very

significant. We know Ed Miliband can do good speeches but there is a

significant shift from last year and the one nation Labour which did not

have detail and was a general big picture and abstract. This is quite

detailed and it is breaking ground significantly with the Westminster

consensus and the legacy of new Labour. And it is breaking with the

legacy of Ed Miliband as energy secretary. A large part of this

market in terms of green pricing and so one was made by Ed Miliband when

Labour were in government. So it is interesting he has to make that

break from his past political life. They have taken that as a calculated

risk. The Daily Mail and the day we tell it rough today have opened up

the fuel we of the Tory press -- the daily Telegraph. He will get accused

of being a flip-flop next week and in the general election. The

reaction from the energy companies has been extraordinary. JP Morgan,

research from them is saying people should not invest in British energy

companies because of the scale of this announcement and the energy

companies seem furious. They do. And some of this jury is because Ed

Miliband has broken the Westminster consensus that new Labour were part

of and labour under his leadership have not broken with until now. So

when you break political ground, you risk challenging all kinds of vested

interests. This has been accused of being anti-business. They need to do

their preparatory work because they will get more of this. I do not know

if they have factored that in, it will be like this until the 2015 UK

election. We will move on but we will speak to you later. One of

Scotland's senior judges has come under fire over plans to scrap the

requirement for corroboration in criminal trials. That is the

centuries-old rule for evidence in court cases to come from two

sources. MSPs took turns to grill Lord Carloway, but he suggested the

move could result in more prosecutions.

Fundamentally, the reason why I recommended the change in relation

to corroboration is because Scotland is the only country in the civilised

world, and by that I am including the whole of Western Europe and the

Commonwealth countries, it is the only country that has a rule

requiring corroboration. That is the fundamental reason I am recommending

the change, because it is my view that what it is doing in this

country is not producing -- reducing incidences of miscarriage of justice

in a narrow sense, but it is creating it in the broader sense in

that perfectly widget at cases are not being prosecuted in

circumstances where there would be a conviction -- legitimate cases. And

that is because of this rule. We looked at other countries and that

was a main driver for the recommendation that Scotland must

change to bring itself into line with modern thinking on criminal

justice. In connection with other countries which do not have

corroboration, the argument has been made that in those countries, there

are a number of safeguards against unsafe conviction. This bill has

only gone with one which was an increase to a two thirds majority

for a guilty verdict, it has not looked at other things, the forms of

safeguards that may exist in other countries. Can you comment on

whether the bill contains the dash-mac -- sufficient safeguards if

corroboration is abolished? I do not consider the abolition of the

requirement of corroboration requires any rebalancing of the

system by the introduction of further safeguards. I think I made

that relatively clear in my report. I did not regard this... Because of

the fundamental view it is not causing, it would not cause

miscarriage of justice of the type we are discussing in the narrow

sense of something going wrong in the trial process, I did not

consider it was necessary to introduce any safeguards. It is

being steam-rollered through, at the Cabinet Secretary agrees with it, we

have a majority governorates -- government. Allow some of us to have

different views, please. The potential is that on your say-so and

when you are speaking, forgive me, potential is that on your say-so and

but an old Scottish phrase comes into mind... The legal system, the

criminal system is not having it you widely considered and that is a

travesty. -- having its view. It is not for me to decide if the law

should be changed, that is for Parliament. I am not attempting to

steam roller anybody into doing anything. Would you agree that the

new test that the Lord Advocate would put together would need to

focus on the credibility of the allegations and the quality of the

evidence requiring prosecutors to assess all the available evidence

with regard to credibility and reliability? The short answer to

that is, yes. They're warm and much more focus on the part of the

prosecutors on the quality of material in front of them. -- there

will be much more focus. The Criminal Justice Bill is being

discussed in the chamber this afternoon as part of a Scottish

Conservative Debate, but before the MSPs take their seats, we can speak

to two members of the Justice Committee. For the Tories, Margaret

Mitchell, and for the SNP, Sandra White. And for Scottish Labour, we

have the former Director of the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement

Agency, Graeme Pearson. Good afternoon. Sandra White, why is

there overwhelming opposition from the legal world to this move? You

have to ask the legal world. We had the evidence from the legal world.

As I said in the committee, I am not from a regal background, I am from a

background that wants to see how we can protect the public. And

certainly, there have been members of the public very supportive of not

having corroboration but what we have to be certain of is that the

evidence is heard in the committee, and that is the most important

thing. We are only at stage one of the committee evidence and there is

more to here and we will make our minds up then. Everybody 's voice

has to be heard, not just the legal side of it. It is good to hear from

the public but the legal voices are quite important in this debate. Is

it a case of the politicians seeming to know better than the lawyers?

Absolutely not. We have got to look at this on the round, this is only

one part of the review of the criminal justice system. Legal

voices are very important but you have got to remember the general

public use the legal system and they have a right to be heard, their

voices are just as important as legal voices. Margaret Mitchell, you

were being very firm with Lord Carloway in yesterday 's committee.

Lord Carloway had his report in November 2011 and this has been well

discussed and debated frequently, why is this being steam-rollered

through? The opinion given by Lord Carloway is only his view and he

made that perfectly clear yesterday. Meanwhile and subsequently, we have

had views from various victims organisations, from people who

practice in the criminal justice system, from the judiciary, that

they are opposed to the abolition of corroboration, which is not the same

as saying they are opposed to looking at how it could be improved.

That third way was not considered by Lord Carloway during this review,

which is why I think it was fundamentally flawed and we should

be now looking at a much wider independent review of the issue.

When you hear what Lord Carloway has to say about corroboration, that it

is archaic, we are the only place in the civilised world that retains

its, does it not make you feel it is time to move on?

Because something has been around for centuries that does not mean we

can abolish it. Corroboration is a -- is at the very heart of our

criminal justice system, preventing miscarriages of justice and being

used in -- on a daily basis. Graeme Pearson from Labour, you are in the

middle of your two colleagues in the middle of this debate, Labour still

seems undecided about this. Lord Carloway's report came out two years

ago, was this surprising? I don't think so. We are getting to the part

when decisions and needs to be taken and we are keeping evidence from all

sections affected by these changes. My own situation, I am not

particularly worried about if it is ancient, arcane or otherwise. What I

want is an effective system of administering justice that works for

everyone concerned and I am not convinced of that yet. We must see

what checks and balances will be put in place or are we merely fiddling

with one part of the process? That will have a detrimental effect on

the future. If it will come forward and say this is worse for us than it

was previously. I mention you are a former senior breeze officer, how

did you find corroboration helped you in your work? There were a

number of aspects to it, you are required to get additional evidence

to prove your case but it was a good discipline because it ensured gather

the evidence that was necessary to bring together a quality case and

help to prevent any miscarriages of justice. I was persuaded by what

Lord Carloway said about winning the quality of evidence rather than the

quantity. Bear in mind that this has been alluded to already, he is the

voice of one senator from the College of Justice and the others

disagree with him, and even the committee he served on, he was

honest enough to see that they did not support him in his view on that

matter. Therefore from my viewpoint, it is not solely about

corroboration, it is about the impact on Julie numbers, the

verdicts available to the Julie and ten witnesses will be dealt with in

the court when they IB soul source of evidence. -- impact on the jury

numbers. Note SNP colleague, talking about safeguards to be put on the

system, this bill only has one safeguard, the simple majority, the

two thirds majority for the Julie. Would Margaret Mitchell be happier

with more safeguards? Saints I think market wouldn't be happier at all, I

think she just wants rid of corroboration. -- I think Margaret

wouldn't be happier at all. I think the committee process is so

important because we will be taking evidence. We have a very short

debate this afternoon but in the committee we can go all the way

through and listen to evidence from everyone including the Lord Advocate

and other people also. I vaguely with what Graeme Pearson said, it is

the quality of the evidence, not the quantity. If you have DNA and

fingerprints you should be able to conflict. If you have that type of

evidence you should not need to forensic scientists to dilute it is

evidence, and that is one of Lord Carloway's report recommendations.

Margaret Mitchell from the Conservatives, hearing that, what do

you have to say? It seems to be a presumption that we have to get rid

of corroboration and the option that has not been tested is to keep and

improve corroboration, and DNA is a step forward. There are techniques

to make corroboration easier. That is defeating the arguments of those

who want to abolish it. Do you believe that we could be at risk of

serious miscarriages of justice as corroboration is removed? Yes I do,

absolutely. How could that happen? If we do move to another system and

there are safeguards in that system while you so sure there would be

miscarriages of justice? There are many ifs there, but the first in it

could do is boiled in the credibility and possibility of one

witness. It being sufficient to conflict, and that is a frightening

prospect. Graeme Pearson from Labour, as Sandra Waite was pointing

out when we talk about corroboration it is not necessarily that two

people can be two sources of evidence. That's right. The

important point just made by Sandra is that it is not solely about the

cabinet secretary listening, he has been good in the past that

listening, what we have to do is act on building some additional

safeguards. Corroboration in the current system provide a level check

in terms of administering justice, if we remove it then we need to see,

what does the Cabinet Secretary decide he wants to put in its place?

It is not sufficient just to see the system will work OK, we need to test

it before it begins to run. We have to leave it there. Sandra White,

Graeme Pearson and Margaret Mitchell, thank you very much.

We will call in to that debate in the chamber in just a few minutes.

First, in 51 weeks for those keeping count, Scotland goes to the polls as

we fought in the independent referendum. What happens immediately

afterwards? The electoral commission has been taking soundings from

people across Scotland and it seems voters are concerned about how

things might pan out. I am joined by the electoral Commissioner for

Scotland, John McCormack. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. First of

all, what do you want this agreement between the two different

governments to say? When it comes to telling people what might happen

after the referendum. The Mac we highlighted this for the first time

at the end of January. Following our research into the testing of the

question we found out that just about everyone we spoke to said they

wanted clarity as to what would happen after the referendum day

itself and these were people who would vote no on yes or hadn't made

up their mind. They wanted to know what would happen afterwards,

process rather than the negotiations about independence. We put that as a

recommendation to the government, saying that the ideal thing would be

a joint statement from the Scottish government and Westminster

government about what would happen immediately after referendum day

whatever the result. If it was a yes vote, what would happen? If it was a

no vote, what would happen? Both governments are discussing that at

the moment and there have been dissed -- there have been

constructive discussions and they have said that they would like to

have their joint statement available by the 20th of September. That is

the day we expect the referendum ability -- to achieve Royal assent.

Then we have time for clarity and distribution to the people across

Scotland some people have a clear idea about what will happen

immediately after the referendum. It is really interesting that the two

governments may come to an agreement like this because the UK government

said they would not be negotiate terms about independence. Do you see

that almost as a step towards that? No, this process. It is clearing up

some of the time frame, the next steps, people had said to us months

ago, the said to us, would it be a general election? Quiz David Cameron

still be paying minister for awhile? Would the first minister remain in

office? They want reassurance on certain basic point about what would

happen. It is clarity about process, not about the terms of independence

or the negotiation between the two governments. Here we have two

governments on either side of the question as people are being asked

to vote on it and saw a joint statement would reassure people that

this would be the process immediately after the referendum day

and we are very optimistic we will have that joint statement by the end

of the year. It will not say a lot, this agreement, or do you have some

hope that it made? We are not involved in the discussions, they

are taking place between both governments, we're not involved. We

will await the outcome. I would not prejudge it. I would not speculate

as to what it might contain. We have sought clarity, the people we are

representing, we are representing the interests of the voters in the

voters have vegetables, and that they would like some clarity about

what would happen after the independence referendum. -- voters

have said to both governments. We will await the outcome of these

discussions. Let's look chiefly at the rest of the process, is the

electoral commission happy about what else is happening, particularly

with 16 and 17-year-old having the vote? The matter of the franchise

being extended to 16 and 17-year-olds as a matter for

government, that decision has not been taken by the Scottish

government and we are satisfied that the act was passed and received

Royal assent on the 7th of August which means that when the annual

canvass and the households of Scotland asking people to make sure

they are on the electoral register takes place, and that starts next

week, that will include a form directed at 16 and 17-year-olds, 15

and 16 votes, those who will be 16 or over on the 18th of September.

That begins next week. We are satisfied that there is good time

for the message to get through to young people about how to register

for the referendum. The referendum Bill which is about to start at

second stage in the hollowed Parliament, we regard it as a solid

good and strong piece of legislation. -- Holyrood parliament.

It has clear rules and transparency of funding and regulation and we

believe that this referendum Bill which has yet to complete its course

is a strong piece of legislation and we will keep an eye on it as it goes

through its last stage but became Christmas comes it should be the

referendum act and it will underpin a very strong basis for the

referendum next year. John MacCormack, we must leave it there.

Thank you. Let's just catch up with her

political commentator, who is still in the studio. It has been

interesting to hear what John, was saying. We are wondering if this was

a step towards the negotiation between the governments but it does

not sound like that. It is an interesting film, as you see, it is

negotiation and citizens negotiation, it depends on what you

define as negotiation. As John said, it is about process and timescale.

That has a bit of an impact on substance, so the way it shifts

things a little bit, any significant direction, towards the government

having ignored and of some kind of substance. Further down the line,

might we see any other agreements and substance when it comes to the

referendum? Or will the UK government wants to leave it at

that? The UK government will publicly stick to nobody

negotiation, and also the influenced by the fact that they think they

will win. -- spec to know the negotiation. There will be small

amounts of incremental negotiations. They will have contingency plans and

the UK department will be thinking about scenarios, what happens in

Scotland becomes independent? It depends on what you think of as

negotiation. It was interesting to see what Mr Commack said about

public meetings, how people were so concerned about what might happen

afterwards, people were asking about the general election, would David

Cameron have to resign depending on how the vote went? What did you make

of that? We would be in uncharted waters, major unchartered waters if

there is a yes vote and most people don't have a widespread political

literacy about what all of these things are. People find it diffident

-- difficult to differentiate between Parliament and government,

for example. Crossing live to the chamber at Holyrood MSP 's are

debating abolishing corroboration. John Scott in the chair, inviting

the opening of this debate. It is a Conservative motion and here is

Margaret Mitchell to speak for the Tories. It was described as an

archaic rule that has no place in the modern legal system. This

assertion has been repeated continuously on the airwaves and it

also contained in the cabinet secretaries Amendment. It is a

statement which at the outset of this important debate is whether of

-- worthy of further scrutiny. Rather than just being automatically

route he did without considering what it means. The dictionary

definition of backache is, injured, saving the past and not absolutely

obsolete but no in general use. Old-fashioned. Saving the past and

old-fashioned mate will be accurate descriptions for corroboration. The

remainder of the definition, the care market is an appropriate and

inaccurate. -- the care archaic. Corroboration is in practice the

principal that far from being absolutely obsolete but no longer in

general use is currently just as it has been for centuries at the very

heart of the Scottish criminal justice system. One very much in

general use on a daily basis where it provides a safeguard against

miscarriages of justice and all of the misery that results from this

and for complainers and accused alike. Lord Carloway said that he

could find no other two distinction in Western Europe or the

Commonwealth who have corroboration. Is he wrong or are all of these

other jurisdictions wrong? The fact that no other jurisdiction is hazard

not sufficient reason to abolish it here. I think that the bizarre

argument. The use of the word archaic is not merely a part of its

semantics but rather indicative of the superficial debate and arguments

that so far dominated the consideration over whether

corroboration should be abolished. A debate that up until now had been

focused on two polarised views. For and against the abolition. With no

consideration of a possible third and better way, worse still has been

the attempt to portray this as the vested interests of the legal

profession against the rights of victims. This is a gross distortion

of the issues at stake as the views of and submissions from a

cross-party group on adult Bible 's childhood sexual abuse confirms.

Sadly it is one that to the large extent has been encouraged by Lord

Carloway himself when he gave evidence to the Justice committee

and dismissed views of key stakeholders in the Camel justice

system in the form of representatives of the legal

profession. -- criminal justice system. These include High Court

justices, the Law Society of Scotland, the faculty of advocates

who with the Scottish police investigation, the Scottish women's

commission and significant -- significantly the cross-party group

on adult survivors are all against abolition of corroboration. Would it

be possible to find out whether everybody agrees with going to a new

verdict, proven and not proven? They will make the position clear, but my

view is that if macro to was abolished, it would strengthen the

verdict for -- the case for a not proven verdict. Everything needs to

be considered, they include a well reasoned and justified comments

received by me from the local are socio- and is. One of these

respondents pointed out there is an irony in the proposal to remove

corroboration on the proposal that to retain it would be to support an

archaic principle. When the selfsame government wishes to take Scotland

back 300 years with its independence referendum. They went on to stress,

without doubt, the removal of corroboration will be to the

detriment of our much admired and ancient legal system. Another

respondent said, I cannot express in of the great fear that my Parliament

's proposal to remove the requirement for corroboration

instils. As a society, I feel this moves as towards the Nazi doctrine,

better 1,000 innocent men convicted than a guilty man should go free.

Other comments included, I do not accept the argument that simply

because it is a feature unique to our system, corroboration has no

place in modern times. I consider, as do my colleagues, that the

removal of corroboration is a solution arrived at in haste to

address two issues in particular. Unanticipated fall in the conviction

rate brought about by a declining confessions I legally advised

accused, and the perceived need to to increase the conviction rate in

relation to crimes committed in private. There are many more equally

valid comments, but the final one I want to highlight was this. I have

no doubt if corroboration is abolished as proposed by the

Scottish government it will lead to many more wrongful convictions. I

understand the concern for victims, but what they will do is create a

new category of victims. Those who have been rumbly convicted on the

basis of one person 's testimony. One of the things which concerns me

about this is that the review by Lord Carloway at top 141 sexual

offence cases that were dropped between July and December 2010. It

found that two thirds, 95 of these cases, would have had a reasonable

prospect of conviction without the requirement for corroboration. It is

the sexual offences situation that bothers me and the fact that so many

cases do not go to trial. I sympathise with that point and

perhaps as I develop my argument, I can give him some comfort in this

respect. These are meant to represent a clear indication of the

strength of feeling against the abolition of corroboration which

cannot be locked at in isolation. -- looked at. The requirement must be

considered at different points in the requirement to justice -- in the

justice system, by the police investigating, the prosecutors, at

trial, by the prosecutor and the trial judge, by the jury deciding

whether it accepts specific evidence, and at appeal. The fact

that no other jury stitch and has the requirement for corroboration is

not a reason to sit for its abolition. -- jurisdiction. And

their attempt to polarise the debate between those who want to modernise

the justice system and those opposed does not stack up. Despite the

overwhelming view of the judiciary that corroboration should not be

abolished, this is not the same as saying it is not capable of

improvement, movement to modernisation, and change for the

better. Here, the cross-party group have been very generous. They have

been very generous, the cross-party group on survivors, suggests

improvement -- improvements which may address the concerns in the

Labour amendment expressed by Kevin Stewart this afternoon. These

include, wider definitions of corroboration, that baby omitted in

cases of rape, sexual assault, child sexual abuse where there is readily

unlikely to be a witness but still maintaining fairness to the accused.

But the consideration of the introduction of mole circumstantial

evidence -- more circumstantial. More systematic and constructive use

of expert witnesses, reviewing the application of the time period

element. Of the doctrine which has offered the opportunity for justice,

for victims of crimes, of violent crimes, where the modus operandi is

similar, leading to more flexible marking of cases by the schools. --

office schools. They make many more recommendations. But Lord Carloway

failed to consider the option for retention of macro to within the

context of looking at the law of evidence. -- retention of

corroboration. It is this failure that renders his review

fundamentally flawed into horns -- in terms of corroboration. So this

option together with the option to retain or abolish corroboration

should be discussed and subject to a wider review of the law of evidence

which should be carried out, including the interaction between a

crypto and loss of evidence, either by referral to the Scottish law

omission or public enquiry. -- commission. Public enquiry has a

broad meaning and there are a number of forms are available, the type

suggested would be similar to the commission established under Lord

Johnson which carried out a wide ranging examination of Scottish

procedure and reduced three reports. In this paper, authors

warned never before had sweeping changes to the Scottish criminal

system been as a result of a single individual and that the review by

Lord Carloway was a model of criminal law reform without recent

President. In conclusion, it is totally unacceptable a decision of

this magnitude is crammed in with the scrutiny of the criminal

Scotland Bill with its miscellaneous provisions. I move the motion.

Kenny McAskill, move the amendment. Would you like to orientate your

microphone? I welcome the opportunity to respond to this

motion under proposal to abolish the requirement for corroboration in

criminal cases. This is a long overdue step in ensuring victims

have access to justice. The criminal Bill seeks to modernise and improve

efficiency in the system and puts Scotland at the forefront of human

rights protections for suspects while ensuring victims are not

denied justice by outdated rules of evidence. I think it is important to

acknowledge we are all working towards the same goal. We want

Scotland to have a modern and effective criminal justice system.

One fit for purpose in the modern age and which properly balances the

rights of individuals and the duties of the state. That is why I ask for

a -- for an expert is to be nominated to undertake it criminal

review in the immediate aftermath of the subsequent legislation. Lord

Carloway rigourously reviewed the key elements of the system and he

spent a year consulting and still liberating and he focused his

recommendations on how we could best combine the red investigation and

prosecution of crime with rigorous and far-sighted human rights

protections. The government then conducted a general consultation on

his report. And a second consultation on possible additional

safeguards following abolition. The provision in the bill to increase

the jury majority for a conviction to two thirds is a direct result of

consultation and I have also agreed in principle with the Scottish Law

commission to review the not proven verdict and I remain open to

deliberating whether further safeguards are needed as the Bill

progresses. The commission for human rights is

against abolition and is he concerned the testimony of one

witness could lead to a miscarriage of justice? And the right to a fair

trial? Yes, I would have concerns if it would be the testimony of one

witness but clear guide nurse -- guidance has been given by the Lord

Advocate that that would not be the test and that is simply not going to

happen. There would have to be additional evidence. Lord Carloway

made it clear it was not quantity but quality of evidence, so that is

the position. I remain incomplete agreement with the damning

conclusion reached by Lord Carloway who said, the requirement of

corroboration should the entirely abolished for all categories of

crime. It is an archaic rule that has no place in a modern legal

system. The Cabinet Secretary would

acknowledge the Senators College of justice is somewhat different in

their views and recommendations and to accept solely the recommendations

of Lord Carloway is a dangerous way forward? The police, victim support

Scotland, rape crisis Scotland, or other institutions have contributed.

These matters this -- debated by a national Parliament and not one body

has the right to veto, it is a matter of a democratically elected

chamber. The law and corrupt -- the war on corroboration has been

debated for three years and nobody has identified another system

operating a general rule for corroboration. We can positively

rule out all of the most directly comparator will jurisdictions, in

particular, more systems and all 47 signatories of the European

convention on human rights. -- more systems. It guards against

miscarriages of justice but Lord Carloway could find no evidence to

suggest it does anything of the support -- of the sort, he found

evidence the other way, that it stops our court hearing cases that

would be tried elsewhere. I can remind the chamber of an

intervention made by Kevin Stewart, 67% of those cases would have had a

reasonable prospect of conviction -- of conviction without corroboration.

The requirement for corroboration has failed Scotland. It was

formulated in a different age before matters such as DNA or CCTV. Times

have changed. What Lord Carloway was asked to do was -- was a root and

ranch review which was logical and thorough. Corroboration in our legal

system is a barrier to obtaining justice for the victims of crimes

committed in private or when no one else was there.

Kenny McAskill speaking in Parliament. Let's get some final

thoughts now in the company of our political commentator, Gerry Hassan.

Margaret Mitchell was saying in her summary that the abolition of

corroboration was crammed in with miscellaneous revisions in the

Criminal Justice Bill. Something strange is going on. The review by

Lord Carloway was at the end of 2011 and there was procrastination and

now an impetus towards a bill, so it does not look like it has a

majority. The justice secretary put forward a stout defence, saying it

was the quantity, not the quantity but the quality of evidence. Lord

Carloway made that point. They are also talking about safeguards but

corroboration could be the ultimate safeguard and it seems too much

haste and too little consultation, there is significant opposition

across the legal profession in Scotland. Significant opposition of

people who know this area. It was interesting when we had that debate

and I put the point to Sandra White there is this opposition from the

legal world but it seems the Scottish government are happy with

what they have got. And also, I do not see where this is coming from in

terms of what significant miscarriages of justice have

happened because of this. The potential, as Margaret Mitchell

said, there is the potential for miscarriages of justice if they're

less people giving evidence, it is worrying. And there is an issue

about the wider issues of legislation. And there was the point

about Labour who are looking to see what will happen. He played his

cards well and hearing him, and Inc this is presented as a tidying up

measure and you could imagine Labour in office doing exactly the same.

That is all we have time for this afternoon. We are back in our usual

slot at half past two over on BBC Two next week. Thanks for your

company this afternoon. Bye for now.