Official Report 125KB pdf
A draft remit for the inquiry into legal aid in Scotland has been supplied to the committee, as has a list of potential witnesses from whom we would seek written evidence first. We had hoped that Frank Stephen, our adviser, would be able to answer questions today, but unfortunately he cannot be here. Professor Stephen works at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, and I think that he has a teaching commitment at 12 o'clock. Normally, it would be possible to attend the committee and return in time for that, but the disruption to the rail line near Polmont means that that is not possible. He sends his apologies. Do members wish to raise any points about the remit as published in the report?
I wonder whether there is any merit in asking the Sheriffs Association for evidence. I am just floating that idea. Sheriffs are often involved in cases in which legal aid becomes an issue in relation to expenses.
Will you consider the remit first?
I was looking at its first page.
I see that your point relates to the first page. I was looking at the second page. However, can we agree the remit first? We can revisit the remit during the inquiry if we think that appropriate. Do members think that the remit makes a reasonable starting point?
I feel inhibited from speaking now.
Do not be; you can talk about the remit.
Like others, I asked Jim Wallace about the uptake of civil legal aid. The funding is being cut, as it was said that the money was not all being used. The Scottish Legal Aid Board is undertaking an inquiry into that. I also asked whether the views of solicitors and the rest of the legal profession were being taken into account. We should remind ourselves of that inquiry. Is it mentioned in the remit?
Yes. The remit covers that inquiry.
The board is conducting an investigation. That issue was raised when we discussed funding at our meeting on 4 October; the discussion can be found in the Official Report. We should have the papers relating to that inquiry.
Are members generally happy with the remit?
Are members happy with the initial list of organisations from which we will seek written evidence? Would members like to add others to the list, which is not exhaustive or final? I would welcome any suggestions.
Now that Gordon Jackson has arrived, it might be useful to return to discussing the remit, because he will have a view on it.
Sorry, Christine.
I am not blaming you, my darling.
Cut to the chase, Christine.
The Sheriffs Association might have an input as one of the parties to be consulted. Sheriffs have a different kind of expertise on the operation of legal aid in the courts.
Sheriffs see legal aid operating at grass roots. Representatives of the association have always turned up and been helpful before.
Fine. Are there any other suggestions? As I said, the list is not final and, obviously, there is also a public call for evidence. We can write later to organisations that are not listed.
Is it appropriate to ask victim support organisations for evidence?
Yes, that is reasonable. Are members happy with the list?