Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

The latest figures for compensation in the NHS indicate that the bill for hospitals in Scotland was £26 million last year, up 80 per cent on the year before. However, half of that total was the result of just 3 high value cases.

Cabinet Secretary for Health, Nicola Sturgeon stated that the high bill was down to a lack of accountability for staff. Where mistakes occur, staff are not usually held to account – even in the case of fatalities. The Scottish Government hope that the Patients Right Bill may alleviate some of the problems once it is introduced.

Good to see that the Government are not proposing “tort reform” as a solution, as is the case in the USA.

I learn, from eGovmonitor, that a new business model for law centres in England & Wales is being piloted with the South West London Law Centres (SWLLC).

Support from the Ministry of Justice, together with investment from a number of large city firms, has been developed into a joint project between government, SWLLC, the Law Centres Federation, city law firms and independent funders. The centre, which had been in financial difficulties, is now the focus of a new business model designed for more sustainable operations in law centres and other specialist advice providers.

Legal Aid Minister, Willy Bach is quoted as saying: “Law centres deliver vital civil law advice and representation to hundreds of thousand people every year across England and Wales. They are responsible for transforming people’s lives, helping them stay in their homes, keep their families together and get into employment and education.”

In terms of cold, hard cash the package includes £235,000 from the Ministry of Justice and £80,000 from private funders including big, shiny law firms Clifford Chance, CMS Cameron McKenna, Lovells & Simmons & Simmons.

I like the idea of large commercial firms paying towards the costs for funding law centres – but what happens if you are due to be represented by the law centre, and your landlord / employer / creditor is represented by one of the firms which help to fund it?

If the law centre is making life too difficult for their funders and opponents, does that put at risk future donations? Or if the relationship is too cosy, does that mean that clients will lose confidence in the law centre?

Watch this space, as if the pilot is a success it will surely be considered as a model north of the border before too long.

I note, from the website Scottish Golf View that the recession is hitting many golf clubs hard with “membership levels in Scotland having dropped by 2.6 per cent in the men’s game and 4.6 per cent on the ladies’ front over the past year”.

But, fear not for the Scottish Golf Union has a number of contacts “experts in finance, legal, general business and so on” – as chair Douglas Connon points out “You tend to find people on the committee of a club with issues often have businesses with some issues as well”.

Maybe if they didn’t spend so much time on the golf course, their businesses wouldn’t be in so much trouble, eh?

The latest Absolvitor offering on the Yell.com solicitors’ blog is a piece which asks the question “Are pre-paid card charges legal?”.

And before you ask, this is not a variation on the bank charges campaign theme. In fact, this is a more serious, potentially far more sinister issue.

As concerns rise that some pre-paid card firms are targeting poorer areas of Glasgow with their wares, the situation many benefit claimants find themselves in involves card firms skimming off an admin fee for receiving their money and another fee for releasing it through an ATM or similar. The charges vary from card to card, but if social security benefits are meant to be inalienable (which they are) then is it legal to take a cut before the claimant can get at their money?

To put it another way, if it is/was a criminal offence for someone to take your benefit book (even with your permission) receive your social security money, then take a proportion to satisfy a debt before passing the remainder on to you – then why is this okay?

Join the debate at the Govan Law Centre blog.

Interesting news reaches us that has lead to the licensing laws of Glasgow City Council being labelled “Sissy“.

According to UPI, recent changes to licensing requirements within Glasgow, require a parent to escort children under 16 years old to the toilets in licensed establishments, including restaurants. Arguably, this would mean that a teenage boy would have to go to the ladies with his mother.

The regulation states: “While children are in any part of licensed premises and in particular the toilet areas, they must at all times be within sight of an accompanying adult.”

According to the Scottish Child Law Centre, it is not against the law to leave children of any age unattended by an adult – but it is against the law to leave children in circumstances which are likely to put them in any kind of danger or risk of injury. And, as they point out, anyone under 16 is still legally a child.

So why the new rules from Glasgow? Child protection, say the Council. They are also quoted as saying they expect people to apply the rule with “a degree of common sense”.

As non-compliance potentially puts a restaurateur’s livlihood at stake, it might have been better to use “a degree of common sense” in drafting the conditions in the first place?

The first Journal of the new year is now online, and that means that the first web review of 2010 is also online.

It has been called “After the festivities…” and covers various family law links and snippets.

I am particularly pleased that I managed to work references to mystery meat, Dirty Den and even (very obliquely) to Rage Against The Machine into the text. Another fine job.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Don’t forget to check out my latest Yell.com blawg post for all the latest developments in the unfolding saga of the minimum class sizes rules.

You can read all about it here: Primary school maths.

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.