New Petitions

Thank you for allowing me, on behalf of Live Beat Dads UK Scotland, and the international men's network in Scotland, to speak to the petition. We believe that the petition required considerable evidence, and that has been sent to all MSPs over the past few weeks. That includes supporting evidence on the matter from three eminent professors. We have clearly set out the reasons why the Scottish Executive must reconsider the present membership of the Justice 1 Committee.When the inquiry into regulation of the legal profession was called, all those who had felt the full weight of persecution and injustice in the Scottish courts had high hopes that the inquiry would take steps to eradicate the problems that were documented and published in the submissions. However, that is not what has happened. Many who provided submissions believe that there has been a substantial degradation of what was promised on 19 June 2001 in the original remit of the inquiry. We believe that that degradation is because of the influence of Law Society of Scotland members on the investigation of human rights abuses by all parties within the legal process, including lawyers. It does nothing to assure people that the inquiry is impartial when at least four of the seven committee members who are involved in the inquiry have been members of, or are connected to members of, the Law Society.I quote from a submission to the inquiry that was provided by a group:"A MAJOR INQUIRY is a very positive first step to ensure that (a) no stone is left unturned … (b) there are no secret meetings … (c) there is no conflict of interest by Parliamentary members" who are also "members of the Legal Profession … associated with the Legal fraternity, or … related to any member of the Legal Profession."That would have given the necessary balance for proper and unbiased research into the subject to be covered by such a major inquiry but, so far, the inquiry has failed on all three counts. Stones are left unturned because of secret hearings, failure to publish all the evidence and failure to name all those who gave evidence, despite a commitment from the Justice 1 Committee on 25 October 2001 to an open and accessible public forum.There have been many secret meetings from which evidence has not been made available. Such meetings breach the provisions in the new Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill that has just been passed. Four of the seven members who are involved in the inquiry have connections with the Law Society. Despite the fact that, since our petition was submitted, that number has fallen from four to three, the inquiry still fails on the third assurance of unbiased research.In the light of the substantial evidence that we have submitted, we ask the Scottish Executive urgently to take the necessary steps to assure all those who provided evidence of injustice and persecution at the hands of an unjust legal system that the inquiry will have that impartiality. We also ask for the issue of a children's commissioner to be addressed urgently, and for consideration to be given to the establishment of an independent citizens' commissioner to replace the Scottish legal services ombudsman, who has no power to influence the Law Society. The duties of a citizens' commissioner would include investigating the legal system, recommending remedial actions for victims of abuse in the legal system and taking measures to prevent further abuse of citizens by the legal system.Finally, we ask for due consideration to be given to an investigation into the circumstances of all suicide victims who, at the time of death, might have been party to litigation. That request forms part of my submission to the inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession. If necessary, inquests should be instigated, because they will show that, for those who do not survive the psychological pressures that come from extended and discriminatory litigation in the Scottish judicial system, persecution and court decisions play a substantial role.I am sorry for rushing through my submission.

No, not at all. We are concerned that, on all three counts that we mention in our submission, nothing has assured those who provided submissions that they have been heard properly. We believe that that is because of the heavy influence of Law Society members on the Justice 1 Committee.

On 29 April, I received a letter from the Justice 1 Committee that shows quite clearly that the original remit, dated 19 June 2001, was changed on 25 October and on 5 February 2002. The committee stated:"At its meeting on 5 February 2002, the Committee further refined the terms of reference by agreeing not to consider the judiciary as part of its inquiry". Those changes were made when the Justice 1 Committee was top heavy with Law Society members—four out of seven of its members. We consider that those changes amount to a substantial degradation of the original remit. We are seriously concerned about the human rights abuses that go on in the Scottish judicial system.

Some of the previous hearings have been held in private, so a person who submits information to the inquiry is not fully aware of what has been discussed. When Christine Grahame outlined the remit of the inquiry on 25 October 2001, she stated clearly:"Whilst several members of this Committee have a legal background, including myself, we place on record that this parliamentary inquiry will be conducted with the utmost of integrity and in an open, accessible public forum."Unfortunately, we do not see that open, accessible public forum when so many meetings are held in private. We have no knowledge of what is being discussed with the legal fraternity on those matters, so we cannot raise opposing arguments. We see that as a major failing in the inquiry.

I believe that Sir David Steel has raised the matter previously. He has expressed concern that far more private meetings are being held in Parliament than was suggested by the openness that was promised when the Parliament was formed.

That might be the case, but the Justice 1 Committee stated that the inquiry would be"an open, accessible public forum."That statement does not cover private hearings.

We have no knowledge of what has been discussed. We have no access to the hearings; therefore we cannot put forward an alternative argument to what has been discussed.

That might be the case, but the inquiry was supposed to be public. People who have made submissions see it as being a private inquiry. It is the first major inquiry into the legal profession.

Unfortunately, while discussions are on-going, alternative arguments to what has been said cannot be put until the committee reaches its conclusions, because the discussions have not been published.

From what has been published so far, it seems that there has been a substantial number of private hearings. That is a major concern. I cannot say what has been discussed at those hearings, because we have no knowledge of them—nothing has been published. We hoped that the discussions would be put on the internet, but we have not seen them yet. It is a bit late in the day for information to be published as findings. It should have been done earlier so that issues could be raised and addressed before the committee reaches its final conclusions. The manner in which the inquiry has been carried out might breach human rights. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the First Minister and the Scottish Executive are responsible for human rights. How is it possible to argue a case for human rights when we are not fully aware of what is being discussed in such hearings?