 I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's 17th meeting in this 2014. I can ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with the broadcasting system when they're switched to silent. Item 1, no apologies, item 1. I'm asking the committee to agree to consider item 5 on its work programme in private. Thank you very much. Item 2, review of expenses and funding of civil litigation in Scotland. This is an evidence session of the Scottish Government's response to a Sheriff's Principal, Taylor's review, and members have copies of the response. I welcome to the meeting Rosanna Cunningham Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs and her officials, Stella Smith, Civil Law and Legal System Division, Kay McCorkadale, Civil Law and Legal System Division and Alistair Smith, Legal Services, Scottish Government. I welcome you all to this meeting and I'm to minister, you want to make a short opening statement. Very briefly, thank you convener and could I remind the committee of my previous declaration of interest which still stands. The first thing to say is of course that the Taylor review is inextricably linked to Lord Gill's Scottish civil courts review. Indeed, the Taylor review has been written predicated on the fact that the recommendations made by Lord Gill had already been implemented. The Taylor review has been made on the assumption that Gill has already been implemented. Of course, the recommendations from the Gill review are what now form the basis of the courts reform Scotland Bill. The Taylor review has always been written and understood to be following on from the implementation of Gill. During stage 1 of the bill, the committee made some connections between the provisions in the bill and Sheriff's Principal Taylor's report. Indeed, the stage 1 report highlighted the relationship between the Taylor recommendations on sanction for council and the issue of the exclusive competence threshold. I consider a sanction for council, which sits in chapter 3 of the Taylor report as the main issue connecting the bill and the report. Although the remainder of chapters 2 to 4 on the cost of litigation and 7 to 9 on speculative fee agreements, damages-based agreements and qualified one-way cost shifting are of more general relevance in the context of the bill. The recommendations in chapters 2 to 4 of the report, including the test for sanction for council, have had close examination. The Scottish Government does not believe that those are matters for primary legislation. They sit firmly within the powers and remit of the Scottish Civil Justice Council. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Lord President have agreed that to be the case. The Scottish Civil Justice Council has only recently been set up and we consider it to be rather odd to having set up the Civil Justice Council then proceed to bypass what was considered to be the proper work of the Civil Justice Council by legislating in primary legislation rather than allowing them to do what was intended that they do. The recommendations in respect of sanction for council will sit with the costs and funding committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council. I understand that the committee sees that as a priority issue and intends that it will be discussed at its next meeting later this month. As we move through the Taylor report, we agree that chapters 7 to 9 are for the Scottish Government and will require to be taken forward by primary legislation. That is the various damages-related recommendations. It was never the intention of the Scottish Government that those should be included in the courts reform bill. Indeed, as already mentioned, Sheriff Principal Taylor himself states quite clearly in his forward that he has assumed that the recommendations of the Scottish Civil Court's review, which are being delivered through the courts reform bill, would already have been implemented. However, the Scottish Government will aim to bring forward further primary legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament that will implement the recommendations in chapters 7 to 9 of the Taylor report. With those very brief comments, convener, I think we could probably just move straight to the questions. Nobody's got any questions. I don't think they're informed form yet. They'll get into this. John Finnie, Ronnie Campbell. Morning, Minister. Minister, I would like to ask you about referral fees. They are banned in England, and we're told that's due to the fact that they were considered not to be an interest to consumers. Are there any concerns that the interest of consumers in Scotland will be adversely affected by the fact that there's not similar arrangements in Scotland? If you could just give me a moment. I understand. At least Taylor hasn't recommended that they be banned, but we are going to look at the options that would protect consumers, and that would be things around cold calling and having a voluntary code. I think that we're cautious about them. It's not about banning them outright, but it's about looking at how one could set protections in place that would prevent the excesses that might have come about. How will that monitoring take place? Who will do that? I'm sorry, I can't answer that question at this stage. We've got to look at the options as to how we might do that. When we might hear about the options you're looking at? We intend to discuss the matter of referral fees with the Law Society of Scotland, who would have to make changes to their rules in relation to referral fees, should it be decided that those should be allowed for solicitors. So we've said in the response that we will take this matter forward by discussing it with them first and foremost, and we've undertaken to look at other options to protect consumers. I think John was asking about an idea of some kind of timescale, and we know that you're going to engage with the Law Society. Do you have any idea how long this process would take? The discussions would be taking place over the summer, which was our intention. You've called for evidence on the Taylor review, and in the context of the Court of Form Bill, this is not going to be part of the consideration of the Court of Form Bill. So our discussions with the Law Society on some of these issues, because this will not be the only issue that we have to discuss with the Law Society, will take place over the summer. And the outcome of those discussions, we can't mandate at the start of the conversation. No, I appreciate that. I just do some idea of when we might have some certainty, but if it's not possible to say it's not possible to say it just now. The certainty surrounds the legislation on the damages package, because we want to do that within the lifetime of this Parliament. Other things may go into longer term. That's helpful. Rodi, and then Eileen. Morning, Minister. I've just got a general question at the moment. On page 2 of Sheriff Taylor's review, he points out in the forward to the differences between England and Scotland in terms of litigation. In terms of the volume of litigation over a three-year period, a number of clinical negligence claims in Scotland, one-thirtieth of all claims made in England, number of claims from employer liability, one-twelfth of all claims from employer liability, and from motor claims, one-twentieth of all claims made in England. Therefore, on any criteria, it's substantially less than we would have thought. I'm wondering what your view is in terms of the suggestions on qualified one-way cost shifting and damages-based agreements, and accepting that we already have perspective for arrangements. What those together might do to the culture of litigation, and are we likely to have, in your view, substantially more cases coming to court? At this stage, I'm sorry I really couldn't answer whether or not it will result in more cases or not. The hope is that it will encourage more people, particularly those who are currently discouraged from raising actions. It will provide openings for individuals to raise actions that at the moment can't or feel that it would be far too expensive for them to do so. It's very difficult to make an estimate at this stage as to how many extra people or extra pursuers might be encouraged by this package of measures. It is a whole package, and it would be very hard for me to say what the numbers would be in the future. Just for clarification, if it might be helpful, Taylor was clean to emphasise that you have to see quarks in the context of the GIL reforms as a whole. For example, the power to strike out unmeritorious claims and case management. We've also said in our response that we will be considering what exceptions should be made to one-way cost shifting, for example, where there is fraud in the part of the pursuer. You're asking me to make an estimate of numbers that I simply can't make. I'm sorry. I wasn't asking you to be as specific as that. I was just saying that there's a general comment on cultures, whether this will encourage a different culture than we have. Given that the Taylor review was set up and really in general terms discovered that there is that same difficulty, and it's usually described as folk either have to be poor enough to qualify for legal aid, or so rich that the costs of it doesn't matter, leaving there for a vast number of people, a vast majority of people in the middle, who feel pretty much shut out from civil action, that what we're trying to do is bring together a whole range of measures which will encourage more people to feel that they do have access to the civil courts. A lot of people at the moment feel that they don't have access to the civil courts, but it's across a whole range of measures, and it's across a whole suite of legislative proposals and rule changes that this will be brought into being. The whole Gill review is part and parcel of that process, as well as the Taylor review and as well as any primary legislation that may follow on from that. But it is all about the entire package of making justice work. In terms of further engagement with stakeholders on one-way cost shifting, for example, obviously in England and Wales it's proposed to extend it to defamation and judicial review. When we are going to consult with stakeholders here, we're going to take a wider view of one-way cost shifting than perhaps Sherry Principal Taylor did? Well, I've already indicated that it's our intention to legislate in the lifetime of this parliament on this package and that will include qualified cost shifting. So that's the point at which the consideration of further extension of cases that would be affected by this would be taken into consideration. That would be a piece of legislation around this area and I think that would be the appropriate point at which we would look at that. But it would be one of the aspects of the consultation in advance of that piece of legislation that we would be asking about the extension to include further cases. Can I perhaps just clarify? Sherryp Taylor, in his report, talks about an incremental approach. His suggestion is that quarks should be introduced in personal injury cases. We will be consulting, as the minister has said, on that in the context of the primary legislation that she's mentioned. But we need to see first how it works in the context of personal injury cases before considering whether it should be extended to other forms of... to other types of cases. I just referred to my register of interests. I've got to do some member of the Faculty of Advocates and pass on to other members. Sherryp Taylor, in his report, talks about an incremental approach. Sherryp Taylor, in his report, talks about an incremental approach. I realise you're not informed today yet. Elaine, followed by Margaret. I think that one of the reasons why we may not inform actually is that the minister has told us a lot of what's in category 2 is actually going to be in the damages bill which is forthcoming. Just to be very careful, this is a separate piece of legislation. We have other damages legislation to deal with first. This would be another... This is a subsequent bill, sorry. I wouldn't want to give the impression that this is all going to be rolled up into one big damages bill. There's two separate pieces of legislation imposed. I misunderstood that. I thought it was safe forthcoming damages. No, no, no. I'm glad you asked that, because that might have led to some confusion. Do you have any ideas, as you say, within the lifetime of this Parliament, but do you have any idea of the timescale for consultation on some of these issues? I can't answer that categorically. I could give you my best guess is that this would be a piece of legislation for the final year. It's difficult to see it happening within the next parliamentary year, but we have two full parliamentary years to go. I think we're all looking forward to years already problem. This is in category 3 protective expenses orders before the event insurance multi-party actions. There seems to be less of a response on that. Are you considering introducing any of these in future legislation? No, this is an area that we consider is appropriate for the Civil Justice Council to use their existing powers. At the moment, we are effectively putting ourselves in the position of a watching brief to see how it develops before we would come back and consider anything further. It is an area of law, an area that is changing. It is something that we want to make sure that the Civil Justice Council does have an opportunity to look at themselves, and we consider it best done there. Part of it is because their fleet are a foot than we are. If we are going to do primary legislation on all of these things, it takes time, and then if you try to change it, it takes further time, whereas the Civil Justice Council are in a position to be able to respond much more quickly. Indeed though, but if it is done through primary legislation, Parliament gets the opportunity to scrutinise it, which it doesn't, wouldn't it? If you do it through primary legislation, that is set in concrete boots for a considerable time. I am certainly not of the view that court rules should be done in that way, because you need to make changes much more quickly than you can make legislative change. Unless, of course, your legislation is full of powers to ministers to bring forward statutory instruments, but then people don't like to see that either, do they? We are all right with statutory instruments. No, but that is a bigger question. Yes, we will be lawyers indeed. There maybe isn't an absolutely perfect way to achieve it, but we do in Scotland quite often watch things change via court decisions and via case law, and the Civil Justice rules will be appropriate to what is currently the decision making process within the courts. Do you think that things like class action procedures can be introduced through rural changes that there would be no necessity for? No, well, you know, we are in the longer term committed to the multi-party actions, the class actions. It's not that it's less urgent, and actually it is a thing that we will consider in respect of that package of legislation that we've talked about. But there are issues that have to be bottomed out with public funding, when you get public funding involved with the Scottish legal aid board, et cetera. So, you know, we're not quite there yet in our certainty as to whether we will put that into that piece of legislation or not, but it is being considered for that. Yes, okay. Oh, I thought you'd disappeared. Margaret, followed by Sandra. Morning, minister. A damages award to the Scottish Government response refers to a cap for this to satisfy, to look at the amount a solicitor can take in its fee. Now, a damages award or agreement could include an amount for future loss. An amount for future loss? Yeah, to include the earnings or perhaps future care of the pursuer. In England and Wales, this has been protected for the client. There's no mention of doing this in the Taylor report. So, could the minister give some indication whether future losses, well, she thinks they are deserving of a special case? Yeah, I do think that future losses worthy of special consideration, and we do intend to consider that. It may not have been clear from the response, but I can put that on the record that it is something that we would be intending to consider if that is the principal concern. Yes, that's helpful. And just on the same subject, then the cap potentially is going to look at market forces, but if they are not seen to operate in accepted manners, then the minister or the government may intervene. Could you clarify more about that, perhaps, how that would work? Intervention or the cap? Well, we are intending to introduce a cap, and a greater sum will not be able to be deducted from damages than is set by the cap, but our response effectively was just agreeing with Sheriff Taylor's observation that in practice less than the cap may routinely be deducted because of competition between lawyers, so we accept that there is a certain amount of market force involved in that. At this stage, we wouldn't intend to intervene. We haven't got plans to intervene, but I suppose in the longer term you might say that if it looks like it's beginning to distort the situation that there might be a reconsideration of it, but, at the moment, no. At the moment, that wouldn't be our attention. Sorry, just for clarification, we have said in the response that we do intend to introduce a cap, as suggested by Sheriff Principal Taylor, on the amount of damages that can be deducted to satisfy the lawyer's fee in relation to a damages-based agreement, which we have said we will take forward in the package of legislation which the Minister has already mentioned. Sheriff Principal Taylor also mentioned in passing that in practice the market will set that despite having a cap in place, market forces will also play a role in this, and it may be that routinely less will be deducted from damages than is set by the cap simply because of those market forces. I understand that, and that's fine. Can I ask you about qualified one-way cost-shifting? I understand the rationale behind this, but not all pursuers are under financial strain and not all defenders are well-funded. Has the Minister any concerns about whether those protections, as he stands, might make some individuals of all companies less likely to defend a personal injury action? That's quite difficult to quantify, but I think in practice defenders who are, for example, small businesses in personal injury action, for example, rarely recover their costs anyway, so in reality they wouldn't be in a worse position, but we will be consulting on it in the context of the bills, so some of these issues would be teased out during the consultation. But would they not have to pay the pursuers' costs? Well, possibly, but these are... I'm sorry, you're asking me about a consultation on a piece of legislation which isn't actually drafted yet, so there are levels of detail here which will be part and parcel of the process of developing that piece of legislation. I suppose it was the whole thing that the pursuer will always have their legal costs met by the defender. And for justifiable reasons if the defender is very wealthy, but that isn't always the case. No, that's true, but then, you know, at the level of that decision-making process, I expect the court itself will have a view. These are issues which, as I said, will come up during consultation on the piece of legislation that will encompass these issues. Okay, I suppose the next part. I was going to ask, just to ask, surely will it not always still be the case that the sheriff or the judge will have discretion in cases to exercise? Yes, of course. I would wonder if that's what perhaps you were asking, you know, Mars, that you're quite right to raise that the plumber or somebody finds himself in court with no insurance, or finds herself in court with no insurance, and then finding that they're going to have to pay the pursuers' expenses even if the pursuer has lost, presumably Minister of the Sheriff would be able to take into account. I'm just asking that. This goes back to the Taylor review being in the context of Gill already having been implemented, that there's a raft of things involved in Gill as well that will impact on this, and it will continue to be the case that there will be decisions, and that would include shreval decision-making process about what would be fair in the context of a particular case. Those are all things that we would have to consult on when it came to looking at the piece of legislation that we're envisaging in the future. The same would be for any... to deal with any potential rise in pursuers saying, well, you know, I've nothing to lose, I'll get my expenses paid and... These are all issues which I would expect to be raised in the context of the consultation on this piece of legislation, which is unlikely to happen now until the final year of this Parliament. The difficulty for the committee ministers is we're trying to get something out of this session, to move further forward than just what we have in paper here and to explore some of these issues, but that was helpful. If we could move on just to the regulation of claims management companies, they are regulated in England and Wales. The recommendation is not to do so here. What's the rationale behind that? There's a couple of different reasons for that. First of all, it has to be said that at the moment there isn't a great... there's not much in terms of reported malpractice or concerns or problems going on at the moment in Scotland. It's not something that has been raised in a serious way, but we've got to also take into account some of the other changes that are being made that are outwith all of this. The alternative business structures, which we're currently negotiating with the Law Society, are not yet up and running, so we don't know what effect they will have on the market. So in some ways, much of what claims management companies do at the moment may no longer be required effectively because once these changes are in place, we've changed the field. So we don't know what effect that would have on the claims management sector. And there is also the aspect of establishing another regulator. That costs money, and while we're still pursuing all these other changes in the process to bring it into place at the moment, we don't think would be the right thing to do. Some management claims companies are already de facto regulated, either because their solicitors involved in them are subject to law society regulation or because they're in fact part of UK-based businesses which are subject to the regulator in England and Wales. So it's really a question of whether it would be proportionate to formally regulate at this stage or whether or not it would be better to see how the field changes as a result of the overall package of changes that are being made. We haven't ruled out claims management regulation, but at this stage we want to see what the impact is of all of the other things that we're doing. And that would include some of the proposals that we've just been discussing that will be part of this other piece of legislation towards the end of the parliamentary term. So it isn't that it's out of the game entirely. It's just that if you're asking me to rank in terms of time and priority, we don't see it as something that we would want to immediately bring forward. I understand that minister, but in the interim when they aren't regulated, some may be de facto regulated and all of the claims management companies are regulated in England and Wales, is there not a danger that Scottish consumers could be at a disadvantage as Scotland becomes a haven for claims management companies that aren't de facto regulated and could be? We have no evidence of malpractice in Scotland at the moment. Now, if that was to change, then clearly we would have to think again. But at the moment we have no evidence of malpractice and in those circumstances we feel that it is the right thing to do to allow a number of these other changes to embed and see what impact it has on the claims management sector. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning minister. Some of the questions I was going to ask have already been answered, particularly future law season special cases. I welcome that and I think the committee does also in coming in the back of Margaret Mitchell's issues in regarding small businesses and pursuers. It would be good to see what happens when the consultation comes out. If I could go further back to one of the ones I think is really important is the sanction for council and understand what the minister has said and her contribution seeing it as a priority issue and the SCJC looking at that, we mentioned obviously the Cost and Funding Committee from the SCJC. Could you perhaps expand on how that will work and what timescale will be for that? Well, I can't mandate them in terms of their own timescale. I indicated that the first meeting to look at this would be later this month. However, the whole of the Civil Justice Council rules procedure is being done as expeditiously as possible. Lord Gill has absolutely no reason not to want the rules changes to be brought in slowly. So my expectation is that this will be dealt with as soon as it can. And it is the case I think that we ourselves are committed to statutory instrument next year on council fees. Is it next year? No, that's the advocate's fees. That's a fairly different issue. To council fees will be left to the discretion of the Civil Justice Council. And they'll look at... They make themselves want to take evidence because the situation is changing. There's been new rules made by the Dean of Faculty since the Taylor review where councils can appear without slisters. So there's various changes that have to be taken into account. The Minister mentioned in her opening statement that the Cost and Funding Committee of the Civil Justice Council does have sanction for council on its next agenda for consideration. Good. I'm just going to say thank you very much. It's very helpful. You mentioned there that it seems to be that it necessarily won't be a full year or year and a half. It could be sooner than that. I think it's also wise to remind ourselves that the Faculty of Advocates has already changed its rules to allow council to act in certain civil cases without an instructing solicitor. These are all things which have happened fairly recently. So things are moving already quite quickly and in some aspects the Taylor review has already been overtaken by some events. Thank you. I might just pursue a sanction for council test a little bit further because this committee felt strongly enough about it to recommend in our stage 1 report that this should be introduced as an amendment to the court reform bill rather than being left to the rules of court. Press you just a bit further on that. The equality of arms is at the heart of access to justice and we must accept that. You will be aware that there's a lot of disquiet around about this. Do you not think that in those circumstances it would be worthwhile putting this on the face of the bill? No, because if you put it on the face of the bill changing it in the future is just that much harder. We've set up civil justice council to do a job. As I indicated in my earlier remarks it would seem paradoxical to set up a body to do a particular job and then proceed to bypass that body by legislating in a primary way. I think that the agreement that's already been reached between the cabinet secretary and Lord Gill is an appropriate one and this is an appropriate issue for the civil justice council. You recognise in your response to the Taylor review on page 9 that some of the concerns because you say that in the early days of the new exclusive competence limit that the justice council should be encouraged to grant leave to appeal will he might not otherwise do so in order for jurisprudence to be built up. That seems to me that you're suggesting that there will be some issues around about this and that the disquiet that we're hearing perhaps has some basis. The point about Lord Taylor's evidence to you and in fact his review on that sanction for council is rarely refused. There isn't going to suddenly be an abrupt change in that practice and if there was an abrupt change in that practice I'm sure it is something that the civil justice council would want to look at but there's no indication that that is the case. Perhaps the representatives don't ask for sanction of council unless they're pretty sure they're going to get it. Maybe that's why it's such a good hit rate. I just put that forward into it. You're not going to do it and find it's rejected. I think pretty clear that you're going to get it if you're asking for it on precedence. Would that be the case? I'm not sure that there's been any particular research done on that basis. I'm conscious from my own experience in the courts that there might be some sheriffs that you would avoid for certain things if you could possibly manage it. It may be the case that that's what's happening here but that would not be an absolutely normal part of the process and wouldn't change with anything that we did. As long as sheriffs have discretion then you will sometimes get that. It is terribly complicated for ordinary people let alone the committee to understand that the ins and outs of all this weighs expenses are going to... How are ordinary people at the end of the day how is the defender or the pursuer going to know what applies to them? How is that going to be... Whose responsibility will it be to put it in simple language? I would imagine the fundamental responsibility of their legal adviser to be giving them the best advice that they can give them in respect of how to proceed with their case. Is that not really at the end of the day the job for the professional that that individual has engaged? I'm just... It's complicated that people have all these things in front of them and at the moment it's quite difficult to explain to a client how expenses operate. I just think with so many this sort of confection of them here this list that it's going to be even more complicated for people to understand what their ramifications would be but I'm not... That has to be a part and parcel of why you employ a legal adviser. I don't think there's ever been any way around that in a sense that in that sense nothing changes. If you're going to raise a legal action the best course of action for you is to first see a solicitor and it is one and I'm sure everybody here in constituency offices frequently advises people that they need to take legal advice. I can't move away from that. If you've employed a lawyer then it is their job as lawyers to advise you as to the best course of action in the particular circumstances of your case. I'm just making the point that it seems to be getting very complicated perhaps it does come with a good result at the end but it's a very complex list of options. I think that ordinary people understand in broad terms things like no claim, no fee or no fee, no claim, that kind of thing that those general ideas are ones which most people do understand. To expect we have lawyers for a reason we have professional legal advisers for a reason and I don't think there's any way you can get round that. It is complex but the law has always been complex. This is getting very jurisprudential now. Yes. Can I just say a point of clarification actually, it's a recommendation in the Sheriff's Principal Taylor's report to set out in a letter to the client all the different funding obligations and options and their amifications of that. That's where the law society to take forward which they'll probably do in their practice. A letter of engagement I take it, yes. I'll turn to one of our legal people here, Roderick. I will keep off duties of legal professionals I think for the moment. Minister, could I just move on and kind of multi-party actions, group actions if it were being suggested, not by me or Hazentine, I wouldn't be so bold that we might seem to be in Scotland rather dragging our feet on this issue and why is the Government not embracing this a bit more forcefully at the present time? What would you say to that? Well, I've indicated that we are considering that for inclusion in the legislation that we would be likely to bring forward in the lifetime of this Parliament. If you were to argue that we should have brought it in five years ago, the fact of the matter is that we have a broad spectrum of change in terms of the justice portfolio and we have to find the right vehicle for change to take place in terms of legislation. I'm sure the Justice Committee is grateful that we haven't added at this stage another piece of legislation to their workload, but it is something multi-party actions, class actions are something that we are considering for that final piece of legislation. Just a general question, Minister. The Taylor review was published a year ago, and we're only getting a response from the Scottish Government now. Had a response been forthcoming earlier, then some of these recommendations could have been included and implemented as part of the court reform view. Why is it taking so long? Well, it's not quite a year ago since it was September last year, and obviously it's fairly significant and substantial. We've been having considerable discussions about aspects of it and our response does reflect that fact and those discussions are still on-going in respect of how best to move forward. But not all the recommendations fall to the Scottish Government to deliver and that we had to accurately reflect that as well. Some needed clarification and agreement with others. Before you make any kind of formal response you have to have some understanding of how others are impacted by it and we will be continuing to work with partners across the justice system in respect of all of the recommendations. I suppose in the sense that the Taylor review came out of the Gail reforms we focused on ensuring that the Gail reforms were being enacted because Taylor's recommendations were all predicated on that having taken place. So that's really basically how we've been working on this. Can I ask when the decision was taken not to implement the Taylor recommendations in the court reform view? What point did you decide no? We're not going to include any of these? The report wasn't published in time for the pre-legislative process that takes place within Government goes back quite a lot further than obviously than simply drafting the bill and remember that you have to consult on the bill. We didn't have Taylor review published at the point we were doing that work. That would have very significantly changed the court reform bill by a pretty serious magnitude and would have probably seriously delayed the court reform bill as a result. Thank you. I don't know if I'm any further forward with any of this. I don't mean that in a rude way. It's just so complicated so much is still to be discussed and consulted on. However, we've tried and you've tried, Minister. We can't ask for more than that. Thank you very much and we'll move on to next item on the agenda. Thank you very much. Now we move on to the next item on the agenda. Subordinate legislation, two negative instruments. These are the adults within capacity supervision of welfare guardians et cetera by local authorities. Scotland amendment regulations 2014 1 2 3 1 2 3, that's and title condition Scotland act 2003 rural housing bodies amendment order 2014 SSI 2014 1 3 0. The purpose of the first instrument is to allow more flexibility in the frequency of visits by local authorities to adult welfare guardians in response to the circumstances of individual adults. The instrument comes into force on 9 June 2014 the delegate powers and law reform committee considered this instrument at this meeting on 27 May 2014 agreed to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention as the meaning of the text inserted by regulation 5 could be clearer. The Scottish Government has undertaken to bring forward its Groundhog Day and amending instrument to correct the error to members of any comments relation to this instrument other than here we go again. That's it, no comments. Members can take to make no recommendation relation to this instrument. Thank you. The purpose of the second instrument is to amend the title condition Scotland act 2003 rural housing bodies order 2004 by adding a body the UL is UL UL community trust CIC as a prescribed rural housing body the DPLR committee considered this instrument at this meeting on 27 May 2014 agreed that it didn't need to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument seems to me to be a technical matter. Members are many comments. Members can take to make no recommendation. Now, I'm going to go on to public petitions but because I think there's people travelling to the Justice McRae petition I hear they're not here to vote 11 I'll take them in a different order and in fairness to them if we've reached that before they come I'll just have a little break if that's all right with the committee. Thank you for taking the effort to travel. For public petitions and you've got paper 5 which provides you with an update so I'll take the first one as PE1449 and preserving independent of the Scottish Administrative Justice Council if you've got that one. The convener of Accountability Scotland has advised the clerks that he has concerns about representation of the end user on the Scottish Administrative Justice Council advisory committee. He wishes to make a submission of the committee detailing these concerns. Can I ask do you wish to write to the convener of Accountability Scotland asking for a formal submission with a specific deadline say Friday, 1st of August or something like that or do you wish to write to the chair of the Scottish Administrative Justice Council advisory committee to ask about the extent to which the end user is represented in its deliberations before we do anything else? Both. You're happy? Is there life out there? Yes, there's life out there. PE1479 on the legal profession and the legal aid time bar, this urges the Government to amend the legal profession and legal aid Scotland Act 2007 to remove any references to complaints being made timuously. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has recently advised the clerk that it is proposing an extension to the time bar policy and will shortly consult stakeholders on this proposal. In the light of that, do you wish to just advise the petitioner of the SLCC's decision and of the forthcoming consultation? Of course that person could also respond to it. Do members also wish to write the SLCC to encourage it to consult so that they are made aware as well the petitioner on his proposal to extend the time bar so that it's interactive? Do you agree with both? Yes. Obviously, I keep it open. Thank you very much. PE1504 on civil appeals. Paper 5 provides a fairly detailed narrative on this petition. The committee previously agreed to consider this as part but you'll maybe remember this as consideration of our quotes reformable. We wrote to the petitioner to ask what the point of general public importance was in her case. And to ascertain the precise reasoning she was given by solicitors for not representing her. Yes. I think it's never been clear to me what that is. She obviously raises concerns about the procedural issues which I understand and which we hope to address with the bill. It becomes law but the general public importance has never been clear to me. So I think it's never been clear to me what the general public importance is and what the general public importance is but it's never been clear to me. So I think we need to ask her again. Right. Okay. Thank you. I'll just suspend then and we have a little break. I beg your pardon. Sorry. Can I go back to PE1479? You did say that there may be an opportunity to interact with the consultation but it says the consultation closed on 21 March. Different consultation. This is a new consultation. We have many consultations. And now I'm going to just give you a little break to allow the other petitioners to arrive in time to do their petition. Okay. That seems fair. What's the time? 11. Till 11. We get a 12 minute break. You're not complaining. Begin. Turning now to petition 1370 on justice for Migrahe and I declare an interest as being member for the justice for Migrahe campaign. Members have received a letter from Police Scotland closing minutes of a meeting with members of justice for Migrahe. The minutes advised, a full investigation of JFM's allegations is now resuming and Police Scotland JFM will hold future liaison meetings. For the papers being issued last week members received a submission from justice for Migrahe which has been tabled. That submission makes clear that JFM believes that constructive progress is now being made between itself and Police Scotland and also we got complimented so I think that's rather nice to the committee. That's nice to make on the police response in the JFM's submission. John. There's very useful information from both parties here. As you alluded to, I think JFM talking about the constructive progress and I think the word progress is significant because quite clearly they aren't there yet. I think the fact that there is confidence in the Police personnel presently engaged in our deliberations and that these liaison committees are continuing is very good. It goes without saying but I'm going to say it anyway. It's a major crime investigation that's being talked about here and therefore it was important that a significant complaint having been made that there were and I quote again from the JFM submission, clear lines of communication having been established. The concern that's expressed by the JFM is the one that we would all understand and that is that all criminal enquiries in Scotland take place at the behest of the Lord Advocate, an important role for the Crown Office there and I think it's important also that we note the three different strands that's been alluded to, their call for a public inquiry, the significant criminal allegations and the anticipated submission from relatives and as the paper says that these three issues are all inextricably linked and I would agree wholeheartedly with that. I note the comment that's been said about the role that the Justice Committee has been played in progressing that and I think I would say that it's the Justice Committee articulating wide-held public interest may concern about the issues that has perhaps helped focus some minds and moved the issue on from the impasse that we saw previously. I think the on-going concerns GFM have do relate to some of the intemperate comments that were in the press last year and I think process-wise wholly inappropriate. I was surprised knowing that I agree with the view that there should be some political oversight into this, this is work in progress, this is not work that's concluded and I don't think the public would be in any way phased but by us maintaining a watching brief in this issue quite the reverse where we to say we're no longer interested, I think that would be give entirely the wrong signal. So I hope that committee members will agree with me that there's a lot of merit in us maintaining a watching brief on this very, very important public issue and keeping the petition open. Anybody else? Roddie, I'm sorry Elaine. I'll take Roddie then. I agree with what John said I think we should keep it open but I'd also be grateful for clarification as to the position in terms of an application to the Scottish Criminal Courts Review Commission. Elaine. It's good to see exactly the same as what Roddie said actually. Well it's not, it's actually, yes sorry Sandra. Thank you chair, I just want to make some clarification having read through it and thank the petitioners for the letter and the submission that you're putting in it. The Justice Committee have done a great job everyone who's been involved before even I was on the Justice Committee. What I want clarification on is the fact that it's going to the Crown Office they looked at it by the Crown Office and there's a paragraph here which GFM contingent to have little faith in any decision the Crown Office might make in respect of its allegations and I'm just wondering where that leaves the committee then obviously the request that the petition goes to an investigation. So where does that leave the committee? Well the petition is for an independent public inquiry and I think that depending what comes out of the police investigation into quasi or alleged quasi criminal or criminal actions during the course of this whole matter then one might have to then say that a public inquiry now is necessary. We don't know that's why I think that to keep it open as for the criminal cases review commission it's got nothing to do with the justice from McRahey that's to do with parties who may have an interest in lodging an application to SCCRC for a further review of the whole matter. So I think that that's although it's contingent it's important but it's not part of this petition. So basically what I was saying is we looked at by the police they've had meetings and they say it's very open etc and then it moves on from there it ultimately goes to the Crown Office and if the deliberations by the Crown Office are deemed to be unsatisfactory by the petitioners then we have a watching brief and this committee has deliberation on that, is that correct? I just want you to know how the process goes. Well we could but I think the problem is that the Crown Office might be implicated past Crown Office might be implicated and I think that's the issue that would be a problem if your police refer to a party that might be somehow implicated depending on what comes out of all this and I think that's where one might have to stop and say this is a big, big issue this may be the very thing that requires a whole public inquiry into the actions, I'm just summarising, I'm not saying this case of the Crown Office and the police John. Through yourself convener, if Sandra's concern is that by keeping it open she's giving some personal endorsement to the views expressed then that's not how I would see it. No, no, I don't think so. I actually signed a petition myself on my way back as well. It's processed. Yes indeed and I think we have to assume that given the re-engagement that things will progress in good faith and what will be will be and what will deal but I think that's an important role for us. May I say to Ken, do you agree to keep it open at the moment see what comes out of all of this and return to it with other petitions as we've done with other petitions in the past when the matter is not concluded. You agreed. Thank you very much so we're keeping the petition open and keep on watching. Thank you very much for now moving into private session.