Plenary, 15 Feb 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, February 15, 2001

Official Report 720KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

There are two Parliamentary Bureau motions for consideration. [Interruption.] Order. The chamber should pay attention to this. The first is motion S1M-1665.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the following instruments be approved—

the draft Code of Representations for the Welfare of Livestock: Sheep (SSI 2001/58);

the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2000 (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2001;

the draft Number of Inner House Judges (Variation) Order 2001; and

the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2001.—[Tavish Scott.]

The second is motion S1M-1666.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2001 be approved.—[Tavish Scott.]

I have received notice that Phil Gallie wishes to oppose the motion. He has three minutes, which I will time.

The draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2001 provide an additional right of access to civil legal aid. The addition will help a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation to appeal against that proscription. Given—sadly—the apparent wealth that backs most proscribed organisations, any such individual is likely to have more than adequate covert resources behind him or her. I stress the word covert. Therefore, the Executive has got its priorities wrong.

Access to civil legal aid is a bone of contention for the Parliament. I guarantee that angry constituents who have been rejected for civil legal aid have approached almost every member. Members have repeatedly referred to shortcomings in the availability of civil legal aid.

We consider issues that involve abused wives and partners. They have been debated many times, but many such individuals are turned away from civil legal aid. Elderly people who have been swindled by unscrupulous traders can be debarred from civil legal aid, as can those who seek to rectify equal opportunities situations.

How can we in the chamber determine that those who are involved in proscribed terrorist organisations should take preference over some of the cases to which I have referred? [Members: "Give way"] How can we—

He is not giving way.

How can we in this place determine such a thing? I will give way.

Will Mr Gallie confirm that anyone who, as a result of the order, applies for legal aid must first convince the Legal Aid Board that they have a reasonable case, just as they would have to do in applying for any other grant of civil legal aid?

That is absolutely right. That applies whether the person who is making the application for legal aid is elderly and concerned about defective trading, or whether the person happens to be an abused wife or partner. However, such people are not currently allowed legal aid, yet here we are adding in people who are alleged to be members of proscribed organisations. I believe that that is wrong. I believe that it will be absolutely shameful if the Parliament backs the motion. I ask members to examine their consciences and stand against the draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2001.

Order. I must appeal for quiet in the chamber. This is a very short but important procedure.

Not for the first time, of course, Phil Gallie absolutely misrepresents the position. First—as the convener of the Justice 1 Committee, Alasdair Morgan, has pointed out—any application for civil legal aid requires a test of reasonableness and, further, a test of probable cause and, indeed, financial eligibility. Anyone who had alternative resources would not qualify for civil legal aid.

Secondly, it is important to recognise that the purpose of the instrument is to ensure that there is a proscription regime that is consistent throughout the UK. Its application in Scotland would be in the case of a group that was based in Scotland that was proscribed—of which there are none, and of which we expect there to be none. However, it seems prudent to ensure that the position is consistent.

Thirdly—and most important—the purpose of the instrument is to ensure that no terrorist organisation benefits from a legal technicality. That is its purpose. That is its priority. It is an entirely proper purpose and priority for us to support this evening.