Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Climate Challenge Fund does not specifically target communities in the highest ranked deciles of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. The Fund’s administrator, Keep Scotland Beautiful, promotes the Climate Challenge Fund throughout Scotland and provides support to all applicants to assist them to make successful applications to the Fund.

Since April 2016 the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has had a regular meeting with the Chair of the Scottish Police Authority on: 10 August 2016; 5 October 2016; 3 November 2016; 14 December 2016; 16 January 2017; 7 February 2017; 7 March 2017; and 18 April 2017 and with the Chief Constable of Police Scotland on: 26 May 2016,10 August 2016; 7 September 2016; 05 October 2016; 9 November 2016; 22 November 2016; 13 December 2016; 17 January 2017; 28 February 2017; and 28 March 2017.

In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice had meetings with both the SPA Chair and the Chief Constable on: 10 November 2016; 29 November 2016; 06 December 2016; 20 December 2016; 11 January 2016; 24 January 2017 and 22 February 2017.

The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of AB v. HMA concerns the defence at section 39 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 of "reasonable mistaken belief as to age." The defence applies in respect of offences at sections 28-37 of the Act concerning sexual activity with children aged between 13 and 15.

There have been 460 people convicted of offences at sections 28-37 of the 2009 Act (where this was the main offence for which they were convicted) between 2010-11 and 2015-16.

The Supreme Court's ruling that section 39(2)(a)(i) does not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights does not of itself have any direct effect on the convictions of persons with such offences. It is the case that anyone who believes they suffered a miscarriage of justice can apply to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to have their case referred back to the Appeal Court. The Commission can refer a case to the Appeal Court where they consider that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and it is in the interests of justice to do so. It is for individual convicted persons to consider whether to make such an application in light of this ruling.

The Scottish Government is carefully considering the terms of the judgement.

The Scottish Government is considering the full implications of exit from the European Union, including the impact on members of the legal profession when representing clients from the EU. We recognise the potential challenges that ending this and other mutual recognition arrangements presents.

This information is not held centrally. The deployment of tasers is an operational matter for Police Scotland. All incidents where a taser has been discharged are notified to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner for independent investigation and the subsequent reports can be found on the Commissioner's website at: http://pirc.scotland.gov.uk/investigations. Any complaints made by the public on the use of tasers are investigated by Police Scotland.

Any application of a spit hood must meet the Police Scotland criteria for use of force. Information about use of force within Police Scotland is collected, monitored and evaluated by Police Scotland’s National Operational Safety Training Unit.

Processes for monitoring use of force are operational matters for Police Scotland, under the oversight of the Scottish Police Authority. However, the Scottish Government understands that Police Scotland will soon be revising the way that use of force is recorded, to allow improved analysis of the use of spit hoods.

Scottish Ministers propose to establish an independent review of the regulation of legal services. The purpose of the review will be to make independent recommendations to reform and modernise the statutory framework for the regulation of legal services and complaints handling. The review is intended to ensure a proportionate approach to regulation that supports growth in the legal services sector. It should also place consumer interests firmly at the heart of any system of regulation, including the competitive provision of legal services. The review will focus on the current regulatory framework, the complaints and redress process for providers of legal services including solicitors and advocates, and ongoing market issues such as investigating the benefits of regulating firms as well as individual solicitors.

Key stakeholders including the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Scottish Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal have previously produced policy papers calling for change to the current system including reviewing the complexity of current processes. The Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”) forms the bedrock legislation underpinning the regulation of legal services in Scotland. It sets out how the Law Society of Scotland regulates solicitors. Some ‘legal’ matters such as will writing and other issues may be handled by unregulated firms or persons. Additionally claims management companies are unregulated in Scotland. The review will be able to investigate all of these areas.

The independent Chair of the review is Esther Roberton, current Chair of NHS 24. Ms Roberton has extensive senior leadership experience in the NHS and other areas of public life. She is also currently a Board member of the Scottish Ambulance Service (2014-18). She was Chairman of SACRO (2010-2014) and until recently also sat on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Audit and Risk Committee (COPFS ARC).

The Scottish Ministers expect that the review panel will undertake stakeholder engagement with the full range of stakeholders with an interest in its work and will gather evidence and have due regard to relevant research and previous reviews into the regulation of legal services where appropriate.

The remit for the Independent Review of the Regulation of Legal Services will be to review the regulation of legal services in Scotland and in undertaking this review, to:

• consider what regulatory framework would best promote competition, innovation and the public and consumer interest in an efficient, effective and independent legal sector;

• recommend a framework which will protect the public and consumer interest, promote the principles of accountability, consistency, flexibility, transparency, cost-effectiveness and proportionality;

• ensure that the regulatory framework retains the confidence of the profession and the general public;

• undertake specific research into the extent of the unregulated legal services market in Scotland and investigate any impacts on consumers, as well as developing a better understanding of the structure of the legal services market.

The review panel have confirmed their participation as follows:

• Christine McLintock - Immediate Past President Law Society of Scotland

• Alistair Morris - Chief Executive - Management Board, Pagan Osborne (Law Society of Scotland)

• Laura Dunlop QC- Hastie Stables (Faculty of Advocates)

• Derek Ogg QC - MacKinnon Advocates (Faculty of Advocates)

• Neil Stevenson – Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

• Nicholas Whyte – Chair of Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal

• Ray Macfarlane – Chair of the Scottish Legal Aid Board

• Jim Martin – outgoing Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

• Dr Dame Denise Coia – Chair of Healthcare Improvement Scotland

• Prof Russel Griggs - Chair of the Scottish Government’s Independent Regulatory Review Group

• Prof Lorne Crerar - Chairman, Harper Macleod LLP

• Trisha McAuley - McAuley Policy and Management

The independent Chair will lead the review and it is intended that it reports to Ministers within 15 months. The outputs will inform future reforms of the regulatory system for legal services.

The 12.5% rise equates to an annual rise of £40 per annum for solicitors in private practice, £15 per annum for in-house solicitors, and £24 per annum for advocates. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has acknowledged concerns around affordability and has advised solicitors on services they can access which would provide the option of monthly payments.

The Scottish Government does not have a role in setting the levy which is to be paid by the legal profession. It did not respond to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s consultation on its draft budget and operating plan. It is for the Commission to set this levy which is to be paid by the legal profession, in accordance with the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has acknowledged the concerns of the legal profession around the impact of the increased levy, particularly in relation to in-house solicitors, and the proportionality of imposing the increase across the whole of the profession. The Commission has committed to engaging with both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates to explore a more risk-based charging structure for future budgets, and investigate options for a more sophisticated and proportionate charging regime. In addition, the Commission have advised on services which can help solicitors with affordability concerns, providing the option of monthly payments.