Society blog

Talk of the town

8 Feb 12

Some thoughts against the background of the mergers dominating the legal news

2011 reflections

21 Dec 11

The economic outlook remains poor, but other developments await in the coming year

Offer them hope

2 Dec 11

Message needed for the young in troubled times

View from Wick

18 Oct 11

Austin Lafferty's faculty visit to Caithness

ABS lift-off

14 Oct 11

Society wants to share draft handbook with those interested in setting up in Scotland

2020 vision

23 Sep 11

Society's objectives set out for today's SGM

Conference call to action

8 Sep 11

"One Profession" event highlights opportunities in the years ahead

Discrimination: bad for business

1 Jun 11

Society will lead in tackling negative perceptions of the profession by ethnic minority solicitors

Dealing with the new Parliament

12 May 11

Society wants to continue constructive relationship in dealing with legal issues

The AGM and the constitution

17 Mar 11

The constitution could do with updating even as regards participation in the meeting

Editors Blog

Rights above board

10 Sep 09
Human rights issues deserve a properly informed debate

There has been an interesting little political spat this week over reforms to the children's hearing system.

Draft Scottish Government regulations extending funded legal representation to parents involved in children's hearings if that is necessary for them "to effectively participate", were defeated in committee but passed by a small majority in the full Parliament.

The regulations are essentially aimed at those with limited linguistic or literary skills, though as members pointed out, the phrasing is widely drawn.

Opposition, taken up by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, was based on objections from panel chairs and members that the move would alter the traditionally non-adversarial nature of the hearings, and make them less child-centred. The Government position was that the measure was necessary to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Convention. This was supported "with reluctance" by the Conservatives, having taken their own advice, while criticising the Government for a lack of information.

Leaving aside the merits of the proposal (and the timing, which is unfortunate when the Government has postponed the bill on the wider future of the hearings until next year, to allow further consideration), it seems hardly satisfactory that MSPs are being asked to make a decision on a point with clear human rights implications, apparently without a clear picture of what the law actually requires.

It was said in the parliamentary debate that the Government is acting on the acting on the basis of a concession in a Court of Session action in which judgment has still to be given. What happened was that it made the regulations in June, immediately following the court hearing, and the Parliament only now (following the summer recess) has the opportunity to debate them – yet in that time no one has managed to make available proper reasons for proceeding one way or the other.

It is not an episode that shows the lawmaking process in a good light. You might have thought also that there should be a role for our new Scottish Human Rights Commission in there somewhere.

MSPs (and MPs too) are sometimes accused of passing legislation they don't understand. Perhaps it is not always their fault.

Have your say





FILLER_lawscotjobs (link opens in new window)