Justice Committee, 25 Mar 2008
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Official Report
279KB pdf
Petitions
Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE767)
The first petition is PE767, by Norman Dunning, on behalf of Enable, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation and effectiveness of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976. This is the second time we have considered the petition.
On 7 March 2008, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced that Lord Cullen would lead a review of the 1976 act. The review is expected to take about a year and will make recommendations on possible amendments to the primary and secondary legislation governing FAIs, to ensure that they continue to provide an effective system. In the light of the Government's announcement about the review, which was what the petitioner sought, it is recommended that we now close the petition and advise Mr Dunning accordingly. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Legal System (Fee Arrangements) (PE1063)
PE1063, by Robert Thomson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the apparent conflict of interest that exists between solicitors or advocates and their clients in the present system of speculative fee arrangements—generally known as no win, no fee arrangements—and to urge the Scottish Executive to overhaul the existing speculative fee arrangements framework and procedures to make solicitors and advocates more accountable to their clients. This is the first time the committee has considered the petition.
I invite the committee to consider the options that are set out in paper 11. The first option is that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to establish whether no win, no fee arrangements have been, or are to be, considered in the wider context of the access to justice considerations—for example, through Lord Gill's review of the civil courts—and to consider the petition again when we receive a response. The second option is that we close the petition on the basis that it relates to the petitioner's unhappiness with the outcome of his own case and that it was open to him to complain to the relevant professional bodies. The third option is that, after considering the matter, we take some other appropriate action.
The petition was obviously inspired by Mr Thomson's experience of the system, but the responses that we have received bring out some interesting points, a few of which we might want to put to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
I suggest that we write to the cabinet secretary mentioning points that have been made to us. For example, the Scottish Consumer Council and the Faculty of Advocates raised issues to do with after-the-event insurance policies, which it is reasonable for us to pursue. There are also issues around contingency fee arrangements, which are illegal in Scotland but are allowed in England. In that regard, it will be worth examining what is said in section 5 of the submission from the Faculty of Advocates. It would also be worth our getting from the cabinet secretary a sense of whether he feels that those issues will or should be covered by the work that Lord Gill is doing.
The responses that we have received raise some general points. There is probably a general need for the public to have a greater understanding of such matters. Rather than approach the petition from the perspective of Mr Thomson's case, which we must put to one side, we should pursue the interesting general points that it raises.
That is a sensible suggestion. A number of issues have been raised and we clearly wish to know whether they will be considered as part of the Lord Justice Clerk's review. I recommend that we go along the line that has been suggested. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private until 13:48.