- The Convener:
Petition PE863, in the name of Bill Alexander, urges the Scottish Executive to amend the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 to allow limited companies to be given the right to apply for legal aid or the right to represent themselves in court. Papers have been circulated, among which is an e-mail from Mr Alexander. I remind members that we considered the petition previously on 7 November 2006 and agreed to write to the Deputy Minister for Justice on a number of issues that were raised. The response from the Scottish Executive has been circulated and hard copies have been placed at members' places. Have members had an opportunity to consider it?
- Members:
Yes.
- The Convener:
I invite the committee to consider how to proceed. Several options are open to us. The committee can note the matters that have been raised and the evidence that has been received and close the petition; seek further written evidence; seek further oral evidence from the petitioner, the minister or any other relevant group or individual; or take any other competent action that it thinks appropriate. I open that to discussion.
- Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
I have read the materials. The issue is closely connected to our continuing discussion with the Executive on sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. The petitioner has identified an anomaly—I say that as somebody who is not usually accused of sticking up for limited companies. The law provides for people to have legal aid, which limited companies cannot obtain. Bigger companies can afford lawyers, whom the petitioner has said that smaller companies cannot afford.
I do not support the proposal in the petition that limited companies should have access to legal aid; that is not attractive. However, I support the suggestion in the petition that the Executive should pursue the matter and get back to us when it commences in March sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act, as it said it would. The appropriate way to deal with the petition is to ask the Executive to pursue the issue and to get back to us when it commences those provisions. That is the most suitable route.
- The Convener:
I remind members that Bill Alexander says in his recent e-mail that he is not convinced that limited companies should be given legal aid, but I take your point about representation.
- Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
My initial reaction is to oppose extending legal aid to limited companies. That was the position that I outlined when we previously discussed the petition. I am slightly confused by Colin Fox's suggestion, because we wrote to seek confirmation that ministers would commence sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act. They have confirmed that they intend to do so next March, so I am not clear what the Executive should get back to us on. The purpose of commencing those provisions is to enable a wider range of representation, because people will acquire new rights of audience. It will not mean that limited companies will be able to represent themselves. I am not altogether sure what the Executive would be required to get back to us about.
- The Convener:
If we cast our minds back to the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill, we will recall that it defines which shops will and will not be able to open. It is justifiable to ask to what size of company the petitioner's suggestion would apply and how that would be defined. To decide that is not for the committee.
- Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
I agree with Colin Fox and Jackie Baillie that we should not extend legal aid to limited companies. I agree with Jackie Baillie about the commencement of sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act—I am not sure whether that takes us anywhere. I am interested in what other members have to say. We should not proceed with the legal aid proposal. To be fair, the petitioner agreed about that in his supplementary e-mail of 3 December.
- Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
I agree that the crux of the matter is representation in court or in a tribunal. The position that small businesses are in is the same for clubs, charities and voluntary organisations, which may be even more deserving than small businesses are of having the anomaly rectified. As Jackie Baillie said, it looks as if some movement will take place next year. I do not know what else the Executive can tell us.
- Colin Fox:
As all members know, the law that we are discussing was passed in 1990. The commencement of the provisions has been delayed by 16 years. Members will realise that March is awfully close to dissolution. Only a couple of weeks' delay would mean that commencement was delayed further into the next session.
My suggestion would ensure that the matter that the petition raises was added to concerns that we have raised previously, as it is related to them. As other members have said, the issue is about rights of audience. I do not want to go into the subject, but the anomaly identified by the petitioner could be removed by giving limited companies the chance not to represent themselves but to appoint people who are not necessarily lawyers to represent them, which the 1990 act covers. It is important to send a message to the Executive that the committee takes seriously the Executive's commitment to commence the provisions in March next year. The petition underlines the seriousness with which we treat the matter.
I notice from the correspondence that was circulated that a letter was sent on your behalf, convener, to the new Deputy Minister for Justice on 16 November. Has she replied? I am not aware that a reply is in my papers, but it might have been circulated separately.
- The Convener:
I will refer to the clerks. [Interruption.]
- Colin Fox:
I see that the reply is one of the papers in front of me.
- The Convener:
A fair bit of correspondence has taken place between the Executive and me on the committee's behalf.
- Colin Fox:
I am grateful for the minister's helpful reply.
- Bill Butler:
If Colin Fox is suggesting that we simply note the petition but write to the Executive to emphasise that the committee takes seriously the Executive's promise to commence sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act in March, that is reasonable. We cannot look into the future and say that we may fall behind by a week or two and that the matter may fall into desuetude. We can emphasise that the committee expects the Executive to keep its promise to act on sections 25 to 29 round about March.
- The Convener:
If the committee wishes me to write to the minister, I suggest that I should highlight the range of issues and groupings that those sections will affect and about which members have expressed concern. We can ask her to take that on board and to respond to the committee if she feels so moved. Does the committee agree?
Members indicated agreement.
- The Convener:
What will we do with the petition? Will we close it, seek further evidence—a letter with an option to respond is not seeking evidence—or take oral evidence?
- Jackie Baillie:
Given what we have agreed, I suggest that we close consideration of the petition.
- The Convener:
Is that the committee's view?
Members indicated agreement.
- Colin Fox:
Is that on the basis of Bill Butler's suggestion that we close the petition but write a letter to emphasise our view?
- The Convener:
Yes. The committee has agreed to that action and the clerks have noted it.