Official Report to See What SLAB and You Have Said
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JUSTICE 1 COMMITTEE AND JUSTICE 2 COMMITTEE (JOINT MEETING) Tuesday 1 November 2005 Session 2 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2005. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Licensing Division, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by Astron. CONTENTS Tuesday 1 November 2005 Col. BUDGET PROCESS 2006-07.................................................................................................................... 355 JUSTICE 1 COMMITTEE JUSTICE 2 COMMITTEE rd th † 33 Meeting 2005, Session 2 † 27 Meeting 2005, Session 2 CONVENER CONVENER *Pauline Mc Neill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con) DEPU TY CONVENER DEPU TY CONVENER *Stew art Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) *Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab) *Jac kie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP) Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP) *Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con) *Maureen Mac millan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) *Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow ) (Lab) *Mr Stew art Maxw ell (West of Scotland) (SNP) Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD) *Jeremy Purvis (Tw eeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab) Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con) *Carolyn Lec kie (Central Scotland) (SSP) Mr Jim Wallace (Orkney) (LD) Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP) *attended Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con) *attended THE FOLLOWING GAVE EVIDENCE: Jean Couper (Scottish Legal Aid Board) Robert Gordon (Scottish Executive Justice Department) Cathy Jamieson (Minister for Justice) Lindsay Montgomery (Scottish Legal Aid Board) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Callum Thomson Gillian Baxendine Tracey Haw e SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Douglas Wands SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Anne Peat ASSISTANT CLERK Lew is McNaughton ASSISTANT CLERK Steven Tallach LOC ATION † 26th meeting 2005, Session 2—joint meeting Committee Room 4 with Justice 1 Committee. † 32nd meeting 2005, Session 2—joint meeting with Justice 2 Committee. 355 1 NOVEMBER 2005 356 Scottish Parliament experience, we also aim to give a view on the likely cost implications. Justice 1 Committee and Justice Mrs Mulligan: In your discussions with the Executive, has it made an adequate response to 2 Committee (Joint Meeting) your identification of the pressures that the proposal might add to the system? Tuesday 1 November 2005 Jean Couper: In general terms, the answer is yes. Certainly, as the volume of Scottish [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 14:06] Parliament legislation has grown, we are getting better at that. The board is consulted more Budget Process 2006-07 regularly and given a proper opportunity to contribute to the costing exercise and to put The Convener (Pauline McNeill): Good forward our views. afternoon. I welcome everyone to this joint Mrs Mulligan: Have there been any instances meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and the of your views not being accepted? Justice 2 Committee. We have received a number Lindsay Montgomery (Scottish Legal Aid of apologies, the first of which is from Annabel Goldie. Today’s meeting was to have been Board): A couple of years ago, an issue arose around the financial memorandum for the convened by Annabel Goldie as convener of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, which Justice 2 Committee; I will convene in her absence. We have also received apologies from contained figures that we did not recognise. Thereafter, the Executive has worked much more Bruce McFee, Mike Pringle and Colin Fox. I closely with us and has brought us in at an earlier welcome Carolyn Leckie and ask her to confirm that she is substituting for Colin Fox. stage of the process. Recently, the process has become far more effective than was the case two Carolyn Leckie (Central Scotland) (SSP): I am or three years ago. substituting for Colin Fox. Mrs Mulligan: In the instance that you The Convener: Agenda item 1 is our scrutiny of mentioned, was it possible to take a fresh look at the budget process 2006-07. Today’s meeting is things? Where there is a difference of opinion on a the second joint meeting to take evidence on the piece of legislation, is it possible to return to it later draft budget for 2006-07 and the efficient in the light of the evidence? government programme. Lindsay Montgomery: That is exactly what We have two witness panels and I plan to split happened in the case that I mentioned. the time pretty equally between them. Our first set The Convener: What has been the budgetary of witnesses is from the Scottish Legal Aid Board: impact of the modernising legal aid regulatory I welcome Jean Couper, who is the chair, and changes since July 2004? Lindsay Montgomery, who is the chief executive. I Lindsay Montgomery: In terms of the efficient am sure that both witnesses are known to government plans? I am not totally sure what you committee members. I thank them for their mean. submission and for agreeing to appear before the committees this afternoon. The Convener: I believe that there have been some regulatory changes to legal aid since about Mary Mulligan will open the questioning for the 2004. I wondered whether you could tell us what committees. their impact has been on the budget so far. Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab): We are Lindsay Montgomery: It is fairly complex and all aware that the legislation that is passed by the some of the changes will take time to work Scottish Parliament can have an impact on the through. Some of the changes that were demand-led legal aid budget. To what extent is the introduced by the earlier set of regulations are Scottish Legal Aid Board consulted by the beginning to work through the system and we are Executive on the implications for legal aid of new beginning to see some changes in expenditure, or proposed legislation? but it will be close to the end of this financial year Jean Couper (Scottish Legal Aid Board): before the picture becomes clear. The monitoring When a consultation paper is issued, the board of those changes is quite complex. A range of always looks closely at the content and takes a things is happening in legal aid and we are trying view on the legal aid implications that arise from to work out which ones are to do with specific the proposal. We always aim to give a sound regulatory changes and which are to do with response to consultations by highlighting the legal changes in business. We, together with the aid implications and any issues that arise. Where Executive, are putting a lot of effort into that, but it possible, and based on our knowledge and is hard to give specific answers at this stage. 357 1 NOVEMBER 2005 358 The Convener: I understand that. We are aware conducted a review of our guidelines on sanction of controversy surrounding the Bonomy reforms—I for counsel in criminal cases. We consulted use that term in the loosest sense, because as widely—judges, sheriffs, the Faculty of Advocates well as the reforms of the High Court of Justiciary, and the Law Society of Scotland—and revised our policy decisions were taken to remove some guidelines to some extent to take account of their business from the High Court to the sheriff court. comments. We are conducting another review this Can you give us any early indications of the year to see how the guidelines are working. impact on the budget of those reforms? The Convener: Are those criteria available? Lindsay Montgomery: There are cases that Lindsay Montgomery: They are published and were previously dealt with in the High Court but available on our website. which are now dealt with in the sheriff court. We are beginning to see a reduction in the average cost of the cases that are coming through. The 14:15 change in sheriffs’ sentencing powers happened in The Convener: Do you believe that you have May 2004, and the figures that we are currently resolved the fee negotiations with the Faculty of looking at appear to show that average case costs Advocates? Some of us have had representations are starting to reduce. Sheriff court cases cost us that much unhappiness is felt about the outcome. less than High Court cases for a range of reasons, so that is beginning to be reflected in the numbers. Lindsay Montgomery: The process has several stages. Some pieces of work involve almost The Convener: Can you give me some idea of emergency regulations, which the Executive is the percentage of cases that formerly would have finalising. They make limited changes that are sanctioned counsel for which you still sanction based on representations from the faculty and counsel now that some cases go to the sheriff further discussion with us. court? We had always said to the Executive that when Lindsay Montgomery: First, it is impossible for the new tables were introduced, we would be anyone—apart from the Crown Office—to say that talking about a completely different system. From a specific case would previously have been heard April, we were talking about preliminary hearings, in the High Court and is now being heard in the which we had not had before, so we had to sheriff court. We certainly cannot do that, nor can provide a fee table while we were a little in the solicitors or counsel—we just know that there is a dark. We said that we would need to review that, change in volumes.