Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 08 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 8, 2000

Official Report 113KB pdf

---

Petitions

We have three petitions to consider.

We discussed petition PE89 at our last meeting, and considered evidence from Barnado's Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation and the Law Society of Scotland. Members will remember that we agreed to draft a letter to Jim Wallace, raising some of the petitioner's concerns in the light of that evidence. Members have received a copy of the draft letter. The letter mentions the main concerns that arose from the evidence and asks that the committee be informed of progress towards finalising the code of practice. We have asked Jim Wallace to consider reviewing the appeals mechanism, because we were concerned that there was no opportunity for the person concerned to be informed in advance. Finally, we questioned whether the appeals mechanism was sufficiently independent according to the European convention on human rights. Are members content with the letter?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE116 calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce appropriate provisions to ensure that aspects of Scots law—in particular the parole system—are ECHR compatible. We considered the petition on 6 September, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Human Rights Centre on the matter. We have received a reply to that letter, which has been circulated to members.

The Executive bill on the matter is being introduced next week.

It will be introduced on 13 November.

In that case, the petition will be overtaken by events.

Do we agree to note the petition? We can write to the petitioner informing him of the bill and suggesting that he take any further action in the light of that legislation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The third petition is PE200, which is on the Scottish Legal Aid Board and in particular the collection and reimbursement of compensation moneys. The committee considered the petition on 13 June. We wrote to the Scottish Legal Aid Board and have received a reply.

I have an insider's comment to make on the legal aid flow chart in the reply. Step 6 says:

"Solicitor submits his bill to Board and confirms outcome of case".

Step 7 says:

"Solicitor's/counsel's fees and outlays paid from Fund".

However, the board does not just pay it on the nail. The solicitor's account goes through adjustment after negotiation—and it is always adjusted down. The letter makes it sound as though the account is just paid, but that is not the case.

We have several options. The Scottish Legal Aid Board has indicated that it intends to review some of its arrangements, which it has admitted are not the speediest. We could write and ask to be kept informed of any progress on that. We are embarking on a legal aid inquiry, although much of the petition would not fall under the remit of that inquiry—the problems raised in the petition would arise long after successful access to legal aid.

Do members agree that we write to the board, asking for information on future progress, inform the petitioner of our actions and treat that as the conclusion of our action on the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That is the end of the public part of the meeting.

Meeting continued in private until 11:08.