Ethical sponsorship ? ‘Asbestos is good for you’ law firm sponsors Law Society’s Donald Dewar debate tournament on ‘more harm than good’ internet

EDINBURGH law firm Simpson & Marwick which famously told MSPs at the Scottish Parliament that asbestos related medical conditions such as pleural plaques ‘were good for you’ and are known to represent scores of solicitors facing negligence claims are revealed to be this year’s sponsor of the Law Society of Scotland’s ‘prestigious’ Donald Dewar Memorial Debating Tournament, along with publishers Hodder Gibson. The debating tournament sees teams from schools all over Scotland compete in debates in an effort to teaches skills which are invaluable at university, job interviews and in employment.

Ironically, for a law firm which endured much publicity after news websites and video footage from the Scottish Parliament revealed the extent to which partners at Simpson & Marwick argued against the Scottish Government’s Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009, the opening topic for the opening rounds of this year’s Donald Dewar Memorial Debating Tournament is the ‘merits of the word wide web – the internet, with teams of pupils debating the motion “This house believes the internet does more harm than good”. (I bet S&M believe the internet does more harm than good, at least to their reputations ! – Ed)

Topics for debate ? Lawyers for Simpson & Marwick told Holyrood Justice Committee ‘Pleural Plaques are good for you’ (Click image to watch video & HERE for more)

The Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 was legislated by the Scottish Government & Scottish Parliament after vested interests (insurance firms) south of the border managed to secure a ruling in the House of Lords which took out various asbestos related condition such as pleural plaques from the list of ailments victims of asbestos exposure could claim for.

Scottish law firms, involving Simpson & Marwick, then Brodies LLP launched a legal challenge against the legislation in the Court of Session to prevent asbestos victims being able to use the new legislation to claim compensation. However, the insurers lost their case after Lord Emslie threw out the insurers legal challenge, which was led by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates himself, Richard Keen QC.

In a 150-page judgment issued at the Court of Session, which can be read online here : OPINION OF LORD EMSLIE in the petition of AXA GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED and OTHERS Petitioners; for Judicial Review of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009, Lord Emslie stated: "Not surprisingly, individuals diagnosed with pleural plaques are liable to become alarmed and anxious for the future, and this may severely reduce their enjoyment and quality of life. The diagnosis confirms significant asbestos exposure in the past, of which they may or may not previously have been aware; it underlines the much higher risk which they now face, many hundreds of times greater than for members of the population at large, of contracting lung cancer, mesothelioma or asbestosis; and in some cases it may bring to mind the suffering and perhaps death of friends, colleagues and relatives from these serious asbestos-related diseases.”

Among other roles Simpson & Marwick are generally known for, is being one of the lead representative law firms to the Law Society of Scotland's Master Insurance Policy, the solicitors Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme which fights clients who attempt to recover assets lost by the ever growing numbers of negligent, or ‘crooked lawyers’ which populate Scotland’s legal profession.

An independent investigation into the Master Policy undertaken by the University of Manchester’s Law School for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission during 2009 linked the Master Policy to deaths, revealing information relating to suicides involving clients who had become involved with the Master Policy, information which the insurers, law firms and the Law Society of Scotland deliberately concealed. Upon publication of the report, insiders at the SLCC claimed the significance of the ‘suicides’ was deliberately talked down in media releases, although it was heavily reported online at the time HERE.

The involvement of some controversial law firms in Scotland’s education curriculum is coming under increasing scrutiny after it was revealed law firms and the Law Society itself are engaged in blocking attempts to include impartial teaching of certain aspects of the justice system in schools, and perhaps more worryingly, some solicitors who have attended schools or been involved with children are, according to legal insiders, not always screened under current legislation for criminal offences of a sexual nature.

Law Society Press Release on Donald Dewar Memorial Debating Tournament :

Pupils to debate if Internet does more harm than good

The opening heats of the Law Society of Scotland's annual debating tournament start today, Thursday 25 November at schools across Scotland.

This year's Donald Dewar Memorial Debating Tournament will see 128 teams compete in the first round of heats during the next two weeks. The competition, which was launched in 1998 to celebrate and encourage debating in schools, has grown to become the largest competition of its kind in Scotland.

The tournament, sponsored by Simpson and Marwick solicitors and Hodder Gibson publishers, invites secondary school pupils to pit their wits and powers of persuasion against each other.

This year the teams will examine the merits of the world wide web web when they debate the motion 'This house believes the Internet does more harm than good' in the opening rounds. 64 successful teams will go through to the second stage.

Heather McPhee, education and training development officer at the Law Society of Scotland, said: "I'm delighted the tournament is remaining as popular as ever. The tournament spans the entire country and each year we see new schools opting to take part and test their debating skills.

She added: "The Donald Dewar Debating Tournament gives young people a chance to consider issues relating to them and a voice to express their views and opinions.

"It also helps pupils develop skills and confidence which will help them in all aspects of their lives."

Schools taking part for the first time are marked *

Barrhead High School*, The Berwickshire High School*, Bellshill Academy, Braes High School*, Buckhaven High School*, Clydebank High School*, Denny High School*, Dunblane High School*, Duncanrig Secondary School*, Leith Academy*, Peebles High School*, Oban High School*, Queen Anne High School*, St Ninian's High School*, St Paul's RC Academy*, Tynecastle High School*, High School of Dundee, Strathallan School, Perth High School, Aberdeen Grammar School, Millburn Academy, Glenalmond College, St Joseph's College, Stranraer Academy, Marr College, Belmont Academy, Jedburgh Grammar School, Earlston High School, Wallace High School, The Community School of Auchterarder, McLaren High School, Linlithgow Academy, St Margaret's Academy, Our Lady's High School, Hamilton College, Holy Cross High School, Stewart's Melville College, Craigmount High School, St George's School for Girls, The Glasgow Academy, Dunfermline High School, Madras College, Nairn Academy, Gordonstoun School, Elgin Academy, Perth Academy, Queensferry High School, St Columba's School, Greenock Academy, High School of Glasgow, Dollar Academy, Lenzie Academy, Douglas Academy, Belmont House School, Uddingston Grammar School, Girvan Academy,The Edinburgh Academy, Boroughmuir High School, Fettes College, Edinburgh, The Royal High School, Edinburgh, George Heriot's School, Edinburgh, St Mary's Music School, Edinburgh, Musselburgh Grammar School, George Watson's College, Edinburgh, Grove Academy, Forfar Academy, Inverclyde Academy, Balfron High School, Hutchesons' Grammar, Glasgow, Mearns Castle High School, Newton Mearns, Abronhill High School, Cumbernauld, St Margaret's School for Girls, Banchory Academy, The Gordon Schools, Robert Gordon's College, Aberdeen, Sandwick Junior High, Albyn School, Inverkeithing High, High School of Dundee, High School of Glasgow, Coltness High School, Sgoil Lionacleit, Merchiston Castle School, Mary Erskine School, Preston Lodge High School, Dalkeith High, Bearsden Academy, All Saints RC Secondary School, Holy Cross High School, Portobello High.

BACKGROUND : Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009

Related media coverage HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE

Introductory Text

1.Pleural plaques

(1)Asbestos-related pleural plaques are a personal injury which is not negligible.

(2)Accordingly, they constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injuries.

(3)Any rule of law the effect of which is that asbestos-related pleural plaques do not constitute actionable harm ceases to apply to the extent it has that effect.

(4)But nothing in this section otherwise affects any enactment or rule of law which determines whether and in what circumstances a person may be liable in damages in respect of personal injuries.

2.Pleural thickening and asbestosis

(1)For the avoidance of doubt, a condition mentioned in subsection (2) which has not caused and is not causing impairment of a person's physical condition is a personal injury which is not negligible.

(2)Those conditions are—

(a)asbestos-related pleural thickening; and

(b)asbestosis.

(3)Accordingly, such a condition constitutes actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injuries.

(4)Any rule of law the effect of which is that such a condition does not constitute actionable harm ceases to apply to the extent it has that effect.

(5)But nothing in this section otherwise affects any enactment or rule of law which determines whether and in what circumstances a person may be liable in damages in respect of personal injuries.

3.Limitation of actions

(1)This section applies to an action of damages for personal injuries—

(a)in which the damages claimed consist of or include damages in respect of—

(i)asbestos-related pleural plaques; or

(ii)a condition to which section 2 applies; and

(b)which, in the case of an action commenced before the date this section comes into force, has not been determined by that date.

(2)For the purposes of sections 17 and 18 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 52) (limitation in respect of actions for personal injuries), the period beginning with 17 October 2007 and ending with the day on which this section comes into force is to be left out of account.

4.Commencement and retrospective effect

(1)This Act (other than this subsection and section 5) comes into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may, by order made by statutory instrument, appoint.

(2)Sections 1 and 2 are to be treated for all purposes as having always had effect.

(3)But those sections have no effect in relation to—

(a)a claim which is settled before the date on which subsection (2) comes into force (whether or not legal proceedings in relation to the claim have been commenced); or

(b)legal proceedings which are determined before that date.

5.Short title and Crown application

(1)This Act may be cited as the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009.

(2)This Act binds the Crown.

Law Society President Jamie Millar attacks leak of dictatorship style ‘media protocol’, says act of leaking by solicitor was repugnant

A little over two days since the details of the Law Society of Scotland’s gagging order media protocol were leaked to online legal websites, the Law Society’s current President, Jamie Millar, has attacked said leak (Comedy capers – Ed)

The Law Society of Scotland’s President Jamie Millar’s letter :

22 Nov 2010
Dear colleagues

You may be aware of this already but if not I would draw to your attention the attached report in the Firm Magazine online -

I would also draw to your attention the note from the Registrar which formed part of the Council agenda (Agenda item 6a) issued to all members of the Council on Friday which indicated those papers which were confidential. Included in the list of confidential papers was the protocol on media communications.

The article in the Firm indicates that the publication has received comment from one senior member of the Society's Executive and two members of the Society's Council. It is clear that that the protocol has been leaked to the Firm and given the unattributed comments in the article the conclusion must be reached that it was leaked by one or more Council members or a senior employee of the Society despite the confidentiality attached to the paper when issued.

I find it repugnant that a solicitor should choose to flaunt one of the basic principles of our profession by breaching confidentiality but to do so in an unattributed way is cowardly and not worthy of someone who has had the dignity of the solicitor's profession conferred upon him or her.

I have always been prepared to engage in open debate with any member of the profession on any issues and to stand up and be identified and counted in relation to any issue.

I invite whoever has breached the confidentiality of the business of the Council of the Society to have the courage of his or her convictions, to identify himself or herself to me, to engage in open and transparent debate on the matter and allow the other members of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland the courtesy of an opportunity to have their say before the matter is put to public debate. Quite apart from the breach of confidentiality, I find the leak of this matter to be disrespectful to the 50 or so members who make up the governing body of the Law Society of Scotland, its Council.

I do not intend to dwell in this e-mail on the merits or demerits of the protocol other than to make it quite clear that the adoption or rejection of that protocol will be a matter for the Council to decide on Friday at the next meeting of the Council and that the protocol does not seek to prevent any Council member expressing any opinions on any matter in their personal capacity or as spokesperson for another body but sets out the basis on which Council members will comment as spokespersons of the Society.

To save the person who leaked the protocol to the Firm the trouble of forwarding this e-mail to Steven Raeburn I am copying it to Steven. I am also copying it to Peter Nicholson of the Journal and I confirm that this e-mail is not off the record and can be published in its entirety in their respective publications.

Regards

Jamie Millar
President
The Law Society of Scotland

Drumsheugh Dictatorship on the march : Law Society of Scotland gags its own Council members with ‘big brother’ media protocol

AFTER revelations of the Law Society of Scotland’s BACKROOM PLOT to take over the Scottish Legal Aid Board & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were exposed in the media and on Scottish Law Reporter, the Law Society of Scotland has issued an overly harsh, reminiscent of a dictatorship, ‘media protocol’ which intends to ban office bearers, Council members & committee members from talking to the press.

The gagging order media protocol will come up for a rigged vote to wave it through democratic discussion at the Law Society’s Council meeting on Friday 26 November 2010

The draft protocol was suspiciously leaked to online law magazine “The Firm”.

The Media Protocol states :

Title: Media Protocols

Aim

The purpose of this paper is to set out draft protocols for office bearers, Council members and committee members in their dealings with the media on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. The paper also outlines the role of the Communications & Marketing Team in supporting the efforts of members to promote the work and policy positions of the Society through the media.

Brief History/Background

As a respected and authoritative organisation, the Law Society of Scotland is frequently approached by the media for comment on a broad range of issues. Similarly, the Society will often wish to proactively seek media coverage to ensure that key decision makers and the wider public are aware of the work being undertaken by the Society and to promote the organisation’s various policy positions.

The Law Society of Scotland’s Communications & Marketing Team (CMT) sits as part of the Society’s executive. Its central objective is to maintain and enhance the Society’s reputation and, to that end, aims to ensure the media report on the Society accurately and fairly.

To meet this aim, it is essential for the CMT to be aware of and manage all aspects of the Society’s media relations. The CMT therefore operates a 24 hour, 365 days a year media relations operation, with a designated communications manager available to deal with media enquiries both during and outwith traditional office hours. This ensures an experienced communications manager is available at any time to respond to media requests and to assist the Society’s office bearers, Council members, committees and executive with any media communications requirements.

Until now, there has been general agreement on the importance directing any and all media communications on behalf of the Society through the CMT. This ensures that the Society’s media relations are properly coordinated and that there is a consistency of message.

At its October 2010 meeting, the Board of the Law Society of Scotland requested a more formalised set of protocols for members in their dealings with the media. The following paper provides the recommended protocols.

Key Factors

A. Protocols for reactive media comment

1. All media requests for Society comment should be made through the CMT press office.

Where an office bearer, Council member or committee member is approached directly by the media and asked to comment on behalf of the Society, they should advise the journalist to make the request via the CMT press office.

2. Where the CMT receives a media request for comment, the relevant communications manager will identify an appropriate Society spokesperson, taking into account the subject matter, the requested format of a response (i.e. written statement, opinion article, broadcast interview etc) as well as the practical availability of individuals.

3. The communications manager will contact the designated spokesperson and brief them on the nature of the request. The communications manager and designated spokesperson should then agree on how to respond to the media request, both in terms of content and format. This may involve consultation with other relevant individuals such as office bearers and committee conveners.

4. Written response statements should be issued to the relevant journalist by the CMT press office and should not be issued by the designated spokesperson. Where there is agreement to provide an interview, either in person or by telephone, the communications manager and designated spokesperson will agree as to who will contact the journalist with respect to any practical arrangements, such as the time and location of the interview.

5. The communications manager may, following consultation with the designated spokesperson and other relevant individuals, decide against providing any reactive comment where doing so is deemed as inappropriate. In such circumstances, the communications manager will respond to the journalist and confirm the Society will not be issuing a comment.

6. Where an office bearer, Council member or committee member disagrees with the communication manager’s proposed strategy for dealing with a specific media request, they should first discuss the matter with the Head of Communications & Marketing. If the matter cannot be resolved with the Head of Communications, attempts should be made to resolve the matter with the Chief Executive and/or the President.

7. In cases where two or more relevant council members and/or committee members disagree on how to respond to a specific media request, attempts should be made to resolve the disagreement with the Head of Communications. If the matter cannot be resolved with the Head of Communications, attempts should be made to resolve the matter with the President.

8. In circumstances where a Council or committee member wishes to respond to a media request in an individual capacity and with a statement that purposely conflicts with the position of the Society, the member should inform the CMT as a courtesy. The CMT will however be unable to issue any such press comment on behalf of the member. In these circumstances and following consultation with the office bearers and others, the CMT may chose to issue a public response to the member’s statement on behalf of the Society.

B. Protocols for proactive media comment initiated by the CMT

1. To promote the work and policy positions of the Law Society of Scotland, the CMT will frequently wish to issue press comment proactively. In such circumstances, the CMT will aim to plan such media communications in advance by scanning ahead for likely media opportunities and, where possible, agreeing comments in advance with the relevant individuals.

2. Where a communications manager wishes to issue a proactive media comment, they will contact the relevant individuals within the Society to first agree that a proactive communication should be issued and to discuss the nature of that communication. A suitable spokesperson for the Society should be determined, with the statement issued in their name.

3. All proactive written media communications should be issued by the CMT press office.

Similarly, all proactive attempts to secure media interviews should be managed by the CMT.

4. Where an office bearer, Council member or committee member disagrees with the communication manager’s proposal to issue a proactive media comment, the matter should be discussed first with the Head of Communications & Marketing. If the matter cannot be resolved with the Head of Communications, attempts should be made to resolve the matter with the Chief Executive and/or the President.

C. Protocols for proactive media comment initiated by an office bearer, Council member and Committee member.

1. An individual office bearer, Council member or committee member may wish to promote their work in the Law Society of Scotland or advocate a certain policy position by issuing a proactive statement to the media. In such circumstances, the relevant individual should contact the CMT to discuss the matter with a communications manager. No proactive media communication should be issued by an individual on behalf of the Law Society prior to a discussion taking place with a CMT communications manager.

2. The individual member and communications manager should agree on the principle of issuing a proactive media communication and the nature of that communication. The individual member may wish to write the content of the communication themselves.

Alternatively the individual member can request that the communication manager draft a full written statement after providing them with background information. The individual member and communications manager should collectively agree the final statement before it is issued to the media following consultation with the Head of Communications & Marketing.

3. All proactive written media communications should be issued by the CMT press office. Similarly, all proactive attempts to secure media interviews should be coordinated by the CMT.

4. Any follow up media requests following the issuing of the proactive communication should be handled in the normal way as detailed in section A.

5. In circumstances where a communication manager disagrees with an individual member’s request to issue a proactive media communication, the matter should be discussed with the Head of Communications & Marketing. If the matter cannot be resolved with the Head of Communications, attempts should be made to resolve the matter with the Chief Executive and/or the President.

6. If the proposed media communication crosses the subject area of another committee, it is the responsibility of the individual member who wishes to issue the proactive communication to contact the relevant committee convener to discuss the matter. In cases where there is disagreement between two or more relevant council members and/or committee members, attempts should be made to resolve the matter with the President.

7. In circumstances where a Council or committee member wishes to act in an individual capacity and issue a proactive media statement that purposely conflicts with the position of the Society, the member should inform the CMT as a courtesy. The CMT will however be unable to issue any such press comment on behalf of the member. In these circumstances and following consultation with the office bearers and others, the CMT may chose to issue a public response to the member’s statement on behalf of the Society.

Recommendation
To approve the protocols set out in this paper.
Author: Kevin Lang
Title: Head of Communications
Date: 16th November 2010

Claims of negligence as Scottish Borders Council lose £3m+ in Icelandic Banks, authority’s Treasury advisers linked to Conservative Party Treasurer

AUDIT SCOTLAND are investigating claims Scottish Borders Council acted negligently & recklessly in investing a staggering £10 million pounds of taxpayers money in the now collapsed Icelandic banks. Such are the scale of the losses the council, which is now cutting public services across the Borders and has gone to two weekly garbage collections, is expected to lose more than £3 million pounds on its investment and that the final payment of its expected return is not due until October, 2018.

The state & scale of Scottish Borders Council’s financial investments and subsequent huge losses in Iceland have only become clearer after an investigation by retired Scotsman reporter William Chisholm, who was well deservedly awarded an MBE for his services to journalism.

During Mr Chisholm’s investigation of the way in which Scottish Borders Council invested in the Icelandic Banks, it became apparent its Treasury Advisers, Butlers, had been involved in widespread losses of hundreds of millions of pounds by Councils all across the UK.

Butlers Treasury advisers are run by the Conservative Party’s Treasurer, Michael Spencer, who was the subject of a report in the Independent newspaper, where, following a two month investigation, journalist Martin Hickman alleged that "councils who paid [a firm run by Mr Spencer] for strategic advice were almost twice as likely to have lost money in the three main Icelandic banks as those advised by other companies. The Conservative Party’s own website continues to list Mr Spencer as its current Treasurer.

The Independent’s investigation of Butlers and its connections to local authorities in the UK, continued : "Of the 116 local authorities who lost money, 51 received advice from Butlers. Their losses totalled £470m, more than half the total amount of council funds frozen in the banks."

Mr Chisholm’s investigation into Scottish Borders Council’s Icelandic investments follows :

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL’S LOST MILLIONS?

Between May and August 2008 Scottish Borders Council (SBC) sanctioned the investment of some £10 million of council taxpayers’ money in two Icelandic banks despite several previous warnings from credit agencies as to the future stability of Iceland’s financial sector.

£2 million of the money invested has already been written off; £1.8 million has been recovered; and according to the council’s latest published accounts it could take until 2018 for some of the cash to be paid back into SBC coffers. Further write-offs may be necessary.

In a bid to find out who was responsible for the £10 million gamble which failed, I lodged a Freedom of Information (FOI) request with SBC on 20th August 2010. The questions asked and the council’s response can be found in their FOI archive (No. 3154) and quoted again at the end of this report. To me the most striking revelation in the response was: “There was no committee involvement in the specific investment decisions”, indicating that elected councillors were unaware that £10 million was about to be deposited in banks which were already being “abandoned” by other local authorities. More evidence to substantiate that fact later.

The council also told me: “The primary source of credit worthiness comes from credit rating agencies. For both banks, on the day the deposits were made, the short term ratings were F1” – the highest credit quality. But in fact both Moody’s and Fitch, two of the world’s leading agencies, had expressed doubts and issued warnings about the Icelandic banking sector, More on this later too. My FOI request also asked: “Has anyone been held accountable for the appalling losses?” I was told the council’s internal auditor carried out a review of all short-term lending following the collapse of the Icelandic banks and concluded there had been full compliance with the Council’s Treasury Management policy.

Because I was not satisfied with SBC’s response I requested a review of my FOI request. I asked for copies of any documentation relating to the catastrophic investment decision including written advice given to the council’s Treasury managers by external Treasury Management advisers. On October 4th correspondence to me from SBC (following consideration of my review request by the council’s FOI Advice Group) included a copy of the internal auditor’s 2008 report on short term cash deposits. But the letter added: “The information related to the advice received by the Council from its contracted treasury advisers, Butlers, was considered to be exempt under Section 36(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, in that if the information was disclosed it would, or be likely, that the council would need to claim confidentiality of these communications.”

So this crucial information will not be placed in the public domain. Just what does the council have to hide? Therefore there must be a strong case for an independent inquiry into this entire sorry affair. SBC will soon be deciding to cut services to save £2.4m – almost equivalent to the sum already lost. A considerable number of those threatened services would have had a better chance of survival had there been an extra £10 million in the kitty. Other assets or resources have already been sacrificed to plug the financial gap left by the £2 million written off. In my view the saga requires urgent investigation, and those responsible must be held to account.

THE EVIDENCE FOR AN INQUIRY

It seems clear in the first instance that Scottish Borders Council – and many other local councils for that matter – did not learn a lesson in the wake of the spectacular crash of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in 1991. In that particular scandal some 35 councils across the UK lost almost £90m by gambling on the money markets. Western Isles Council was the prime “victim” when £23m – equivalent to 50% of the council’s entire budget – simply disappeared.

Scottish councils were warned after BCCI’s collapse: “The higher the interest rate the higher the risk.” Yet that stark warning appears to have been completely ignored by senior council staff at SBC, and by their so-called Treasury Management consultants when the struggling Icelandic banks upped their interest rates to attract multi-million investments. And elected councillors, said to be the guardians of the local public purse, simply abdicated their responsibility by neglect. From research carried out to date these are the events which led to millions of pounds of Borders taxpayers’ money disappearing down an Icelandic drain.

According to the Local Government Association, local authority deposits in Icelandic banks halved Between January 2008 and October 2008 from £2 billion to £953 million. The number of new deposits fell and declined sharply after April 2008. Only six councils and one pension authority in the entire United Kingdom deposited money after significant downgrades by credit agencies. So it is important to remember when SBC lodged our money with Landsbanki and its parent bank Heritable.

According to SBC’s accounts for 2009/10 the deposits were made as follows:

15th May 2008 - £3m Landsbanki;

25th July 2008 - £2m Landsbanki;

25th July 2008 £1m Heritable Bank;

22nd August 2008 - £4m Heritable Bank.

In other words these deposits were made long after the alarm bells started ringing.

For example on 30th January 2008 Moody’s credit agency placed Landsbanki on review for possible downgrade. Then on 28/2/2008 Moody’s downgraded Landsbanki from A2 to Aa3, reflecting concerns over asset quality. On 5th April 2008 Moody’s cut its outlook on Iceland’s sovereign debt from stable to negative. On 1st April credit agency Fitch downgraded Icelandic banks and placed Landsbanki on “negative watch”. Did no-one spot the actions of these credit agencies in the weeks and months before the £10 million was deposited? It would appear not.

Instead SBC seems to have relied solely on advice it was getting from its contracted treasury advisers Butlers. A total of 51 local authorities received advice from Butlers. Their combined losses in the Icelandic debacle were £470m. A subsequent investigation showed councils who paid Butlers for advice were almost twice as likely to have lost money in the three Icelandic banks than those advised by other companies. Butlers only warned councils about the desperate situation of these banks on 30th September 2008, the same day the Icelandic Government took control of the country’s third largest bank.

Mr Chisholm concluded his investigation saying “It seems to me that members of Scottish Borders Council were negligent by not keeping a very close eye on the authority’s money, and officials were reckless by choosing to make deposits in these unstable banks so late in the day. In total seven Scottish local authorities had over £45m of public money lodged in Icelandic banks on the day that they imploded. It seems 25 councils had more sense, steering clear of Iceland altogether.”

Mr Chisholm’s Freedom of Information request to Scottish Borders asked :

I would like to make a Freedom of Information request on my own behalf for information contained in any discussions or documents relating to the council's ill-fated £10 million investments in the collapsed Heritable and Landbanski Icelandic banks. Specifically:
(1) where did the £10 million come from to fund the investment?
(2) On whose advice was the investment made?
(3) according to SBC accounts the money was deposited only weeks before the 2008 collapse of these banks. What checks were made on the financial in/stability of the two banks?
(4) Please make available all committee and full council minutes relating to the investment.
(5) Has anyone been held accountable for the appalling losses exceeding £3 million? As a council tax payer contributing £246 per month I was extremely concerned to learn vast sums of public money had been lost in such a venture so:
(6) How much money does the council have invested elsewhere?

Scottish Borders Council’s response stated :

1 I can confirm that the funds were short term cash deposits made under the Council's Treasury Management Policy.
2 Investments were undertaken by Treasury Management staff in accordance with the Council's Treasury Management Policy and with advice from the Council's external Treasury Management Advisers.
3 The primary source of credit worthiness comes from credit rating agencies. For both banks, on the day the deposits were made, the short term ratings were "F1 - highest credit quality, indicates the strongest capacity for timely payment of financial commitments".
4 There was no Committee involvement in the specific investment decisions. The subsequent position has been reported in the Council's accounts and via Committee reports which are available on the Council's website.
5 The Council's Internal Auditor carried out a review of all short-term lending following the collapse of the Icelandic banks and concluded that there had been full compliance with the Council's Treasury Management policy.
6 At 31 March 2010 the Council had £3.5m on short term deposit with Barclays.

Borders MSP John Lamont was asked by one of our reporters for his reaction to the revelations of Scottish Borders Council’s gigantic losses of taxpayers money. He said : “I have written to the Accounts Commission to ask if they are able to investigate this further. I have not yet had a response.”

Audit Scotland were asked for their reaction to the claims of widescale losses at SBC. A spokesperson said : “We have received correspondence about this issue,asking for an inquiry. We are considering the correspondence and will respond in due course, in line with our usual procedures for correspondence."

No one at Scottish Borders Council was available for comment this evening.

Scottish Parliament hears Petition 1370 by “Justice for Megrahi” group calling for inquiry into Camp Zeist conviction of Lockerbie Bomber

TUESDAY of this week at the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee saw the “Justice for Megrahi” group attend Holyrood, to give evidence on Petition PE1370, raised by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of 'Justice for Megrahi', calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.

The Committee took evidence from Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie and agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking responses to points raised in the petition and during the discussion.

The Petition can be viewed here : Petition PE1370, Direct link to Petition 1370, Scottish Parlaiment SPICe Briefing

Video footage of Petition 1370 Justice for Megrahi calling for inquiry into conviction of Lockerbie Bomber (click images below to view)

The Scottish Parliament has since published its written questions to the Scottish Government after taking evidence from the campaign group :

Written Questions for Petition 1370

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PE1370:
QUESTIONS ARISING FROM COMMITTEE MEETINGS
(See ‘Written submissions’ for responses)

TUESDAY 9 NOVEMBER 2010—

Scottish Government

• Will you open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 as called for by the petitioner and for the reasons given in the petition?
  
• If not, will you provide a detailed explanation why not, specifying whether there is any legislation which would prevent you from holding such an inquiry, what this legislation is and how it prevents?
  
• Who would have the power to undertake an inquiry in the terms proposed in the petition?

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seek 4 new board members @ £209 a day to prop up failed law complaints quango

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – that extravagant unregulated regulator created out of the mess of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, has decided it doesn't have enough board members and has gone on a recruitment drive for a further 3 non-lawyers with ‘consumer backgrounds’ and one additional lawyer to 'balance up' the board room table.

The appointments are being made by none other than Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in an effort to prop up the ailing ‘independent’ regulator which is costing everyone in the Scottish legal profession as well as clients an increasing fortune to maintain, despite the lack of work its members appear to engage in, along with their humungous expenses claims, currently standing at a whopping £135K for only 9 people, many of whom appear to have ‘loads-a-money’ and jobs galore. By our reckoning, if another 4 join up, their expenses claims could push the SLCC into one quarter million pounds expenses territory, and that's only on the accounted claims !

Stern legal critic Peter Cherbi, reporting on his “Diary of Injustice” weblog has (much to the relief of many in the profession we assume) ruled himself out of applying, which is just as well as his own investigations of the SLCC are rumoured to be the cause of these latest appointments, which incidentally the Scottish Government had to change the terms of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 with a specific amendment to achieve.

However we at Scottish Law Reporter have already heard rumours there are some other ‘consumer trumpet blowers after the £209 quid a day & more letters after their name’ are circling over the appointments, one apparently claiming to have the close ear of a senior Scottish Minister who it is alleged could swing him onto the SLCC (ooh that would be a highly improper interference in an appointments process if it happened – Ed). Strangely enough one of the potential suitors for the position already appears to have had several meetings with SLCC officials in the presence of 'a senior politician' ... so prospective candidates may want to check whether this is actually a fair round of appointments or not ...

Here follows the job advertisement from the Appointments for Scotland website, which has also been listed in several newspapers and around the web. If your legal practice is suffering this year in terms of business, just spare a thought for these ‘consumer hounds’ sapping a little more of your blood to prop up the SLCC..

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION (SLCC) APPOINTMENT OF 3 NON LAWYER MEMBERS

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) requires 3 non lawyer members to become part of their Board with effect from February 2011. The successful candidates will be appointed by Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session.

As a non lawyer member you will have the ability to apply objective and impartial judgement to the resolution of disputes, have the ability to offer guidance on one or more of the following Commission activities: regulation, consumer rights, consumer advocacy, consumer needs and have the ability to contribute to an effective team.

The SLCC was established by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The main functions of the Commission are to resolve complaints alleging inadequate professional service or negligence by legal practitioners, to refer complaints which allege professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct to the relevant professional body and to promote good practice in complaints handling.

Remuneration: £209 per day. Travel and subsistence costs and reasonable receipted childcare and dependent carer expenses directly related to the Commission’s work will be reimbursed.

Term of appointment: 5 years.

Time commitment: Up to 6 days per month. Around one third of the time spent on the work of the Board and two thirds on complaints.

Location of meetings: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, The Stamp Office, 10-14 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh EH1 3EG.

Closing date for applications is 29 November 2010

An application pack can be downloaded from this site, or alternatively, by contacting the address and/or freephone number below. You should provide your name, address and the appointment that you are interested in.

Download Application Form Here

Download Guidance Pack Here

Submit Completed Application Form Here

E-mail: application requests and returns should be emailed to:
paapplicationsmailbox@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Postal: Scottish Government,
HR Public Appointments
Saughton House (E1 Spur)
Broomhouse Drive
Edinburgh
EH11 3XD

Freephone: 0800 015 8449
Fax: 0131 244 3833

Appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland. All applicants must complete and submit the application form contained in the application pack in order to be considered for appointment. Please note that application forms sent electronically will be in Word format and, if returning electronically, will only be accepted in that format.

Appointed on merit; committed to diversity and equality

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION (SLCC) APPOINTMENT OF LAWYER MEMBER

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) requires 1 lawyer member to become part of their Board with effect from January 2011. The successful candidate will be appointed by Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session.

As a lawyer member you must be a practising Advocate in Scotland.

The SLCC was established by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The main functions of the Commission are to resolve complaints alleging inadequate professional service or negligence by legal practitioners, to refer complaints which allege professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct to the relevant professional body and to promote good practice in complaints handling.

Remuneration: £209 per day. Travel and subsistence costs and reasonable receipted childcare and dependent carer expenses directly related to the Commission’s work will be reimbursed.

Term of appointment: 5 years.

Time commitment: Up to 6 days per month. Around one third of the time spent on the work of the Board and two thirds on complaints.

Location of meetings: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, The Stamp Office, 10-14 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh EH1 3EG.

Closing date for applications is 23 November 2010

An application pack can be downloaded from this site, or alternatively, by contacting the address and/or freephone number below. You should provide your name, address and the appointment that you are interested in.

Download Application Form Here

Download Guidance Pack Here

Submit Completed Application Form Here

E-mail: application requests and returns should be emailed to:
paapplicationsmailbox@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Postal: Scottish Government,
HR Public Appointments
Saughton House (E1 Spur)
Broomhouse Drive
Edinburgh
EH11 3XD

Freephone: 0800 015 8449
Fax: 0131 244 3833

Appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland. All applicants must complete and submit the application form contained in the application pack in order to be considered for appointment. Please note that application forms sent electronically will be in Word format and, if returning electronically, will only be accepted in that format.

Appointed on merit; committed to diversity and equality

Scottish Government announces plans for implementing Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review on Scots ‘Victorian’ civil justice system

The Scottish Government have finally announced their intentions with regards to implanting ‘some’ of the recommendations of the Civil Courts Review, the damning critique of Scotland’s ‘Victorian’ civil justice system carried out by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill. The Scottish Government say the proposals will take ‘some years’ to implement …

Readers can download the Civil Courts Review report in pdf format, from the Scottish Courts Website at the following links :

• Volume 1 Chapter 1 - 9 (Covers McKenzie Friends, procedures, advice etc, 2.99Mb)
  
• Volume 2 Chapter 10 - 15 (Covers mainly the issue of Class (multi party) actions etc, 2.16Mb)
  
• Synopsis (215Kb)

A more critical & in-depth analysis of the Scottish Government’s proposals can be viewed HERE

The Scottish Government’s full response to Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review can be viewed online here : Scottish Government Response to the Report and Recommendations of the Scottish Civil Courts Review or can be downloaded directly, here : Scottish Government Civil Courts Review response (pdf)

The Scottish Government release on their intentions to implement the Gill reforms :

Proposals for civil justice reform

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill today announced the Scottish Government's response to the Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review, a wide-ranging review led by Lord Gill.

In the report, Lord Gill presented 206 recommendations for change, representing a comprehensive programme of reform - recommendations that are today broadly endorsed by the Scottish Government as necessary for ensuring Scotland has an efficient and effective civil justice system for the 21st century.

The Scottish Government agrees with Lord Gill's analysis of the problems currently facing Scotland's civil courts and believes radical reforms are justified.

Subject to public debate on the details of Lord Gill's proposals, and current constraints on public spending, the following recommendations, in particular, are accepted:

* Civil court business should be reallocated to more appropriate levels, with a far greater proportion of civil court business to be heard by the sheriff courts

* A specialised personal injury court should be established as part of Edinburgh Sheriff Court

* The creation of a new Sheriff Appeal Court

* The introduction of a new role of District Judge

* Adoption of an improved and more active approach to case management

* The introduction of designated specialist judges

Work is already underway on several of Lord Gill's recommendations, and the Scottish Government will continue to work with key stakeholders, including the Scottish Court Service, to take forward proposals for the legislation required to reform and ensure Scotland's civil justice system continues to provide an effective and efficient service for any individuals, families, communities and businesses.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "I thank Lord Gill and the members of his project board, Lord McEwan, Sheriff Principal James Taylor and Sheriff Mhairi Stephen, together with all the members of the broader policy group and others who also participated in the review, either as individuals or as representatives of organisations. Their collective contributions have provided a landmark in the development of Scottish civil justice."

"I am pleased to announce the Scottish Government's commitment to taking forward the majority of Lord Gill's recommendations, which have been broadly welcomed by Scotland's legal community and by the Parliament.

“I am keen to maintain a broad consensus as we set about implementing the required changes. This will enable progress to be sustained across different sessions of the Parliament, as will be necessary with the timescales involved in fundamental change. The Government is establishing a major change programme entitled Making Justice Work which will co-ordinate and oversee reforms across the system."

Law Society ‘urges’ Scottish Government to implement civil justice reforms after year long MacAskill 'no-show' on proposals

The Law Society of Scotland has today urged the Scottish Government to take action on the now over-a-year-old recommendations of the Civil Courts Review, carried out by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill. To-date, the Scottish Govenrment have published little by way of their intentions to implment Lord Gill's recommendations, and notably Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill appears to have missed most of the Parliamentary debates on the subject, instead being lead by Communities Safety Minister, Fergus Ewing MSP.

While it has been noted Lord Gill made clear his recommendations were not to be “cherry-picked”, the Law Society appears to have done exactly that. A further in-depth investigation of the ‘cherry picking’ (along with a few apples – Ed) can be found HERE

The full release from the Law Society :

Society urges Scottish Government to implement civil justice reforms

The separation of civil and criminal cases, an increase in the threshold for the Court of Session and introduction of specialist sheriffs are just three of the recommendations made to reform the civil justice system by the Law Society of Scotland.

The Society's Civil Justice Committee submission to the Scottish Government today has backed many of Lord Gill's 2009 Civil Courts Review recommendations and believes the suggested reforms could potentially bring the greatest changes to Scotland's civil courts in over a century.

Kim Leslie, convener of the Society's Civil Justice Committee, said: "Lord Gill's report identifies a number of structural and other weaknesses currently affecting Scotland's civil courts, and makes recommendations designed to make radical improvements which, if implemented, will dramatically alter the delivery of civil justice in Scotland.

"We made submissions to the initial consultation as part of Lord Gill's review and welcomed publication of the report in September 2009. We are now keen to see implementation of some of the key recommendations to improve civil justice in Scotland.

"The scope of the review was huge, and the Society's Civil Justice Committee has not commented on every recommendation in the review, however one of our own key recommendations would be to separate civil and criminal business within the Sheriff Court because many of the current problems arise from the huge amount of judicial time which is spent dealing with summary cases.

"We also support the view that there should be specialisation within the judiciary, in particular in administrative, environmental and planning law as well as family, commercial and personal injury cases.

"Such specialisation could be introduced without the need for primary legislation and at no great cost to the public purse - there has already been a successful pilot in Glasgow Sheriff Court of such a system and think this would be beneficial if rolled out across Scotland. The committee is also keen that there should be the option of using a commercial court in each Sheriffdom."

The Society's Civil Justice Committee has also backed increasing the threshold for civil cases in the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. Currently the threshold for cases to be heard in a Sheriff Court is £5,000 and the committee believes this should be raised to at least between £20,000 and £50,000 to allow business to be directed to the appropriate level competent to deal with it.

Ms Leslie said: "Any increase in the threshold for cases to go before the Sheriff Court must coincide with the introduction of specialist sheriffs. We would also endorse the creation of a third tier, dealing with appropriate cases to alleviate pressure on the civil justice system.

"We are in broad agreement with many of the recommendations made in the Civil Justice Review, although we have also taken the opportunity to outline reservations on some of Lord Gill's recommendations, such as a national Sheriff Appeal Court for civil appeals. We would now urge the Scottish Government to implement some of the recommended reforms including the establishment of a Civil Justice Council for Scotland, which would bring in the cost and funding of litigation as part of its remit.

"We are keen to see the introduction of workable improvements to Scotland's civil justice system for all those who use it and work within it and look forward to working with government in bringing forward reform."

The full Law Society of Scotland Civil Justice Committee report can be read at: Law Society Civil Courts response or directly downloaded HERE