Abusive Parents (PE997)
The committee has two petitions to consider, the first of which is PE997, by Peter Cox, on behalf of the Mothers for Justice Campaign. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to provide greater protection to the children and partners of abusive parents.
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 people in the legal profession more accountable to their clients.
I confess that it is tempting to dive into the individual's specific case, but obviously we should not do that, and we will not do that. That said, it seems that there is a point of principle lurking somewhere and that there is at least the potential for a conflict with what is in the professionals' interests. I am not going to accuse anybody of being unprofessional, but we are all human. Lurking somewhere behind the issues that have been raised is something that we should not let go of, so I wonder whether we should at least hold on to the petition while other things are going on. I am not suggesting that we should make any work for ourselves, but we should not lose sight of it. We could wait until the publication of Lord Gill's report and the results of other things that are going on have come back to us and return to the petition in due time, whatever that means.
That is a pertinent issue, of course. As it says in the paper from the clerks, in due course we will consider the Lord Justice Clerk's submissions on his review of civil procedures, and it is obvious that the matter that is raised in the petition is pertinent to that. In the circumstances, the committee might want to retain a hold on the petition, as Nigel Don suggested, and to consider it again when matters have been advanced following Lord Gill's submissions.
I have no objection to our doing that. Another option would be to advise the petitioner that we have not lost sight of the points that he raised and assure him that we will consider those points and all aspects of Lord Gill's report. I suppose that a third option is to write off the petition just now while offering a guarantee that we will keep an eye on the issues.
It is not a bad thing to hear people's personal experiences—we should welcome them—although I appreciate that information needs to be verified and other commentary is needed. When we take evidence on Lord Gill's review, it might be helpful to hear from the petitioner and anyone else who has a personal experience to relate. All too often, committees do not hear from individuals who have experience of the processes that we are considering. The best way forward would be to invite the petitioner to give evidence to us during this parliamentary session.
I have no objection to your suggestion, although I offer the normal caveat that hard cases make bad law. Mr Thomson is entitled to submit written evidence to the committee when we take evidence on the review, as is any member of the public. The committee might well decide that the evidence that he has to offer is particularly pertinent.
I reassure Paul Martin that I was not saying that we should not hear from the petitioner. My concern is that we ensure that that gentleman does not think that we can act as a sort of court of appeal on matters that are and must remain in the legal system. We must make it clear that we cannot substitute our opinions for those of the courts.
That is wise counsel.
I should declare my membership of the Law Society of Scotland, albeit that I am not practising.
I think that there is a fairly consensual view among members that issues need to be addressed. How we address them is the decision that we must make. My preferred option is simply to close the petition and to stress to Mr Thomson that he will have the opportunity to give evidence in the light of the on-going action taken by the Lord Justice Clerk and this committee. However, we would have to stress that it might be some time before we are in a position to pursue matters further. Is that agreeable to members?
I think that we should hold the petition open. If we do so, we will be able to use commentary on the petition when we start to take evidence. If we close the petition, we will be saying that we are happy that the issue that the petition raises has been concluded.
I am perfectly relaxed about that. All the points that have been made are eminently sensible. Do we wish to keep the petition live?
I am a member of the Public Petitions Committee and I was there when this petition came in. As I understand it, the committee tries to keep a petition live if there is a prospect of getting the result that the petitioner is looking for. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament
Does anyone hold strong views to the contrary? I am not disposed to go to a division on what is a fairly simply matter. Does the committee conclude that we should keep the petition live, and that we should consider the matter in conjunction with our evidence on reforms to civil justice?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private until 11:52.