Scottish Government set to defy OFT over lawyers self regulation in legal services consultation as MacAskill demands Law Society powers 'be protected'

Much like demanding there should be no inquiry into the worldwide banking collapse, Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is set to defy the Office of Fair Trading's views of removing all powers of self regulation currently enjoyed by the Law Society of Scotland, in favour of creating a new independent legal services regulator similar in nature to the system now operated in the rest of the UK, where the Law Society of England & Wales is now little more than a 'trade union' for its member solicitors.

In Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, while certainly being a 'trade union' for its members, also remains the prime regulator for the legal profession, despite recent moves to shift complaints to the troubled, scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which cannot seem to perform its intended function of 'ultimate consumer protection' against some of Scotland's notorious crooked lawyers.

Revelations from the recently announced 'public consultation' into reforming Scotland's legal services market structure, entitled "Wider choice & better protection - a consultation on the regulation of legal services in Scotland" show that while the OFT have made known their view the Law Society of Scotland should be completely stripped of any regulatory functions whatsoever, the Scottish Government are set to defy the wishes of consumers, most consumer organisations, and the OFT itself, by virtually guaranteeing the continuation of the Law Society's dual role as regulator and promoter of solicitors interests.

OFT - remove the Law Society's regulatory powers : “The Office of Fair Trading (OFT), amongst others, has expressed concerns about the regulatory and representative roles of the Society. Its view is that, in the interests of consumer protection, there should be a clear separation of the regulatory function from the responsibilities for representing and promoting the interests of the profession. It is argued that, for a profession that places emphasis on the avoidance of conflicts of interest (of even the appearance of such), undertaking both roles creates such a conflict."

Quite rightly, the OFT has taken the view, after reviewing the considerable evidence of lawyers closing ranks to protect each other against client complaints & claims of poor service, the legal profession is unfit to regulate itself. Improvements in regulation south of the border in England & Wales have already taken place, separating the functions of the solicitors governing body from regulatory responsibilities, a move which many had campaigned for & hoped would be implemented also in Scotland.

Mr MacAskill, however has apparently ruled himself, albeit after a disturbingly intense, albeit private campaign by senior elements of the Scots legal establishment, that the Law Society's powers as regulator of the legal profession, along with it's responsibilities for representing and promoting the interests of the Scots legal profession should remain, allowing the solicitors notoriously crooked, closed shop governing body to prevent clients & consumers getting a fair hearing when it comes to complaints against 'crooked lawyers'.

Kenny MacAskill : We must protect Law Society : "It is the Government’s view that the Law Society should remain as the regulator of individual solicitors, and we are sympathetic to their aspirations to regulate ABS. However we believe that this will require a move towards a clearer separation of the regulatory function. In respect of this aspect of the work of the Society, we also believe that the argument for majority non-lawyer representation on any regulatory committee has considerable merit.”

Mr MacAskill has already made it clear, he feels he and the Scottish Government must protect solicitors from any changes which may affect their 'income' or powers to protect each other from complaints …

A source from within the Justice Department today condemned Kenny MacAskill's blank cheque to the Law Society, claiming "This consultation is nothing but a front for the Law Society who have badgered at ever turn for wording to be changed and fanciful claims to be inserted over their conduct on complaints which everyone knows to be dishonest"

I asked the legal insider whether they felt the consultation paper in its present form was impartial enough to actually do some good and produce some results which may benefit Scots consumers of legal services. They felt however, that intentions were otherwise :

"Parts of the consultation paper look like a Law Society scripture intended for a solicitors conference rather than a genuine attempt to inform the public and seek their views on regulation of solicitors and how they feel legal services in Scotland should be reformed"

"It is widely thought by some of my colleagues there is an organised attempt by the Law Society and other organisations in Scotland which represent solicitors to stage manage the whole consultation process and I & others would not be surprised if some of the returning submissions from the legal profession were the work solely of a few from the Law Society itself"

Another official from within the Scottish Government further lambasted Mr MacAskill's consultation exercise, condemning it little more than a talking shop, and stated, rather strongly ; "Mr MacAskill's condom for the Law Society would not work as Scots will & should demand the same level of protection the rest of the country has from these beasts of the legal system".

To further ascertain who else in the Scottish Government held the view the Law Society should be allowed to remain as regulator of solicitors, I asked a senior Government insider for their opinion. He replied “This is not actually the view of the entire Scottish Government as the wording in the consultation suggests, it is simply the view of Mr MacAskill, the Justice Secretary”.

So, who actually does think the Law Society should be allowed to remain as regulator of solicitors ? Only it seems, lawyers, or ex-lawyers turned politicians are willing to cling to those ideals …

Law Society ran consultation ? One further area attacked by officials who feel their efforts to reform the Scots legal services market are being hampered, are the various 'inserts' into the consultation paper demanded by the Law Society, suggesting all is well with current regulatory models operated by the profession's governing body, particularly those relating to the compensation schemes offered to ruined clients of crooked lawyers, who invariably never receive a penny while their solicitor usually seems to get off 'Scot free'.

Here follows one such example from Mr MacAskill’s public consultation, seemingly the work of the Law Society instead.

Consultation quote on Master Policy : "Currently, consumers enjoy a greater level of protection if the legal services they receive are delivered by a Scottish solicitor working within a traditional firm, as opposed to an unregulated legal services provider working outside the reserved areas. If alternative business structures are to become a reality in Scotland, it is important that the same level of consumer protection applies to alternative business structures as it does to traditional business models."

The above quote, looks like it comes straight from the Law Society of Scotland itself, and I have to say I do remember over the years, previous Law Society Chiefs such as Kenneth Pritchard, and Douglas Mill, using the same phrases to describe the Master Policy Professional Indemnity Insurance of Scots solicitors, which is widely recognised as being the most corrupt insurance arrangement in existence, with the sole aims to protect crooked lawyers from financial damages claims from ruined clients.

You can read an interesting story about the work of the Master Policy to protect crooked lawyers here : Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

You can read some of my previous reports on the woes of the Master Policy here : The Master Policy - a policy of protection for crooked lawyers

You can download the Scottish Government’s legal services consultation (in Acrobat pdf format) here : Wider choice and better protection: A consultation paper on the regulation of legal services in Scotland

You can read my earlier report on the consultation here : Lawyers monopoly on legal services set to last until 2011 as MacAskill's 'dithering consultation' delays wider access to justice for Scots

If there is to be genuine change & reform of the Scots legal services market, so consumers can get the transparent, impartial regulation they deserve, while solicitors get the 'trade union' they deserve, there must be a change in attitude at the Scottish Government from protecting the professions, to embracing the public interest and putting people first, rather than bowing to the likes of the Law Society of Scotland, who are twisting the public interest, and the public debate away from genuine change, back to the protection of long held monopolies and closed shop regulation once again.

MacAskill’s SLCC lied over secret meetings with Law Society & Marsh as quango announces £15k 'study' into master policy & guarantee fund

Despite public calls for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to get on with the task of monitoring the infamous 'Master Policy' professional indemnity insurance scheme of Scots solicitors & advocates, which is now universally known for protecting crooked lawyers, the best the Commission has achieved after talking about doing something for nearly a year is an announcement on it's website of its intentions to seek a contractor to carry out the study.

SLCC covertly met Marsh & Law Society June 2008. However, while solicitors clients who are being assisted by the likes of Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, were making requests to the Commission to give their views & input on actual experiences with the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, only to be told by the SLCC it had yet to decide on how to proceed on the issue, it has now been revealed in heavily censored papers, the Commission had actually met in June 2008 with the Law Society of Scotland and the discredited insurers Marsh UK, who had given several presentations to members of the Commission on how the profession views the workings of the Master Policy.

An insider linked to the SLCC claimed earlier this week: "No one at the SLCC wants to deal with the issue of the Master Policy because it has caused so much controversy over the years. These delays are nothing but a stalling tactic to put off any real input coming from the public because we know its going to be very bad what comes in".

"The Law Society and Marsh were desperate to get their views across before anyone else could make their case about their own dealings with the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, and there was little will at the SLCC to engage the public in any way at all at on the issue".

The SLCC's Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, who is on a salary of £70,000 a year, also doesn't seem to know which way to turn on the issue, after being spectacularly caught out admitting the commission didn't even have a copy of the Master Policy itself, and hadn't bothered to ask for one during the presentations with Marsh & the Law Society, Masterman going on to admit she might not even seek a copy of the documents of the multi billion pound Master Policy which her office is supposed to be monitoring, as per functions laid down in the legislation which created her huge salaried job in the first place.

£70k a year SLCC Chief Exec Masterman playing semantics with enquiries : “Although you now mention a meeting between the Royal Sun Alliance (RSA) and the SLCC, your previous letter referred to Marsh alone. A briefing meeting between representatives of RSA and members took place in July 2008 (not in the offices of the Law Society of Scotland). Finally I am unaware that the SLCC hold a copy of the Master Policy. Whether or not we seek to obtain such is a matter yet to be decided. In this regard I would refer you once again to the information given above.”

You can read more about the poor attitude of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission towards its consumer protection duties in an earlier report here : Complaints Commission 'unfit for purpose' as secret meetings with insurers & pensions take focus over consumer protection against crooked lawyers

So it appears we have what is claimed to be an 'independent' & 'impartial' commission responsible for handing complaints against Scottish solicitors & overseeing key issues of consumer protection in the Scots legal services market, which doesn't seem to want to actually do its job, and worse, seems to be run from inside the legal profession itself which created the problems in the first place, necessitating the intended reforms contained in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which now seem all but lost on the SLCC, staffed & run mostly by ex Law Society officials, ex members of Law Society committees, ex Police, and others from the world of self regulation.

The SLCC appear to not want to face the realities of just how bad the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund are, but the world has already leaned some of the devious & corrupt goings on in the Master Policy after the confrontation between Cabinet Secretary John Swinney and Douglas Mill, the Law Society's ex Chief Executive who clashed with Mr Swinney over the content of Mill's own memos, revealing a long standing Law Society policy of protection of 'crooked lawyers' against complaints & financial claims by solicitors clients & members of the public.

John Swinney breaks ex Law Society Chief Douglas Mill on Law Society's 'policy to protect crooked lawyers'

Cabinet Secretary John Swinney exposed solicitors corrupt Master Policy at Holyrood.John Swinney not only took Douglas Mill to task, he also revealed that others within the Law Society of Scotland, including Kenneth Pritchard, Mill's previous Boss, had also operated a Law Society scheme to protect 'crooked lawyers', even intervening in clients access to justice and demanding solicitors cease to represent those who were attempting to claim against the 'Master Policy'.

John Swinney reveals Law Society Chiefs ordered solicitors ditch clients over 'Master Policy' claims & complaints

You can read more about the Mill video and just how corrupt the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund are in some previous reports I have made on the subject here : Law Society boss Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints. & here : The Corrupt Link Revealed - How the Law Society of Scotland manages client complaints & settlements.

The issue became so strong after my reports on the subject, that Douglas Mill was then forced out as Law Society Chief Executive only a few weeks after the video surfaced on You Tube, which you can read more about here : Breaking News : Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill who lied to Parliament, pursued 'personal vendetta' against critics - to resign

With allegations that insiders from the legal profession and elements of the SLCC and Scottish Government will seek to undermine the 'study' once again, to exclude the likes of John Swinney's Parliamentary evidence, and the many experiences from members of the public which condemn the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund as corrupt and a sham … what can we really expect from such a 'study' which seems to have standing orders to 'find no fault' with lawyers and exclude the truth ?

Does anyone think Jane Irvine, Eileen Masterman and the rest at the SLCC want to sit down and really listen to people such as John Swinney, or members of the public who have been victimised and had their lives ruined by officials from the Master Policy insurers and the Law Society just because they dare complain or try & claim against a crooked lawyer ? I don’t think so … not unless a ‘new broom’ is taken to the disgraceful current anti consumer attitudes prevailing at the SLCC

Here follows the 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 'study contract' advertisement from the commission's website.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – Master Policy and Guarantee Fund Research

JANUARY 2009

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) is currently seeking expressions of interest from contractors who wish to be invited to tender for the above contract.

The Task

The SLCC was created under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 and its main function is to handle complaints against members of the profession. In addition, its wider remit under s39 gives the SLCC oversight with regard to the operation of professional indemnity insurance by relevant professional bodies, including the Scottish Solicitors’ Master Policy and of the Scottish Solicitors’ Guarantee Fund.

The SLCC is seeking to commission research on the purpose and function of the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund and of the professional indemnity arrangements for Members of the Faculty of Advocates.

The work will take place between March and May 2009. The research methods will be developed by the contractor in collaboration with the SLCC. A budget of up to £15,000 inclusive of overheads and VAT will be available.

Contractors will be short-listed on the basis of relevant skills, experience and demonstrated expertise in the following areas:

* Conducting literature review
* Undertaking key informant interviews
* Managing and conducting focus groups
* Previous experience and knowledge of the legal sector in Scotland
* Knowledge and research experience of working with the Scottish Government and other government departments

If you wish your organisation to be considered for this project, please complete an Expression of Interest form and return it to Richard.Whitecross@scotland.gsi.gov.uk by 12 noon, Wednesday 18 February 2009. Click Completing an Expression of Interest Form for further information.

Submission of an Expression of Interest should not be taken as a guarantee for inclusion on the short list since the number of Expressions of Interest may exceed the number of contractors invited to tender for this work. All contractors who submit an EOI form will be notified of the result of the exercise

Dean of Faculty calls for class actions against banks as Scots legal profession turns against financial sector

Earlier this week the Dean of Faculty, Richard Keen QC, appeared in the media to call for a lifting of the ban on Class Action litigation in Scotland, ending a long tradition and campaign by Scotland's legal profession to keep class action litigation out of reach of Scots, due to the Law Society of Scotland's fears that thousands of clients of 'crooked lawyers' may turn on the legal profession itself and instigate class actions for the profession's governing body's poor regulation of solicitors work and lack of compensation to victims.

A lifting of the Scottish Government's ban on class action litigation in Scotland would be a most welcome matter, ending a prejudice maintained against ordinary Scots for too long, at the behest of vested interests in the legal profession, who until now, have not raised the issue as a matter for reform, with regard solely to the public interest.

However, the Scottish Consumer Council, now renamed Consumer Focus Scotland, have been calling for class action litigation to be allowed since 1992, and the Scottish Law Commission also recommended progress on the issue in 1996, so Mr Keen QC is slightly tardy in his recent call that class actions be allowed.

The Royal Bank of Scotland is of course, first in the firing line apparently, as members of Scotland's legal profession are letting it be known they feel there should be a raft of class actions against the RBS, particularly due to an alleged lack of information relating to rights issues, which have been used to fund takeovers, such as the disastrous RBS participation in the deal for Dutch banking giant ABN Amro, which has effectively brought the RBS to its knees.

As we see however, from the Scotsman’s report on Richard Keen QC’s call for class actions to be enabled in Scotland, his suggestion apparently relates only to the banking sector, as perish the thought class actions could be used against any other sector of business in Scotland, including of course, his own beloved colleagues in the legal profession, who themselves receive upwards of four thousands complaints a year on everything from poor service to widespread embezzlement of client funds.

It is slightly strange, the Scots legal profession should now feel this way about its own bank, as the Royal Bank of Scotland handles a significant amount of business for the Law Society of Scotland itself, as well as thousands of solicitors and legal firms in Scotland.

As things appear not to be as they seem, we must therefore examine the legal profession's motives for this abrupt change of strategy towards their once friendly business partners such as the RBS, who even sponsor the Scots legal profession’s annual legal awards ceremonies for the ‘quality’ of solicitors legal work !

I note for instance, what has seemingly escaped mention by the Dean of Faculty, is the coincidental fact many of those 'sweet finance deals' which solicitors & legal firms have regularly received from the banks, as a reward for steering client funds into particular banks & other financial institutions, have effectively come to a halt due to the financial turmoil in the banking sector and the low levels of interest rate returns currently on offer.

Basically these ‘sweat finance deals’ work like this : A solicitor will steer any funds received from his clients to his preferred bank or financial institution, in return for a 'sweet finance deal' at special interest rates, which ordinary consumers could never hope to negotiate. These funds include money received for all types of legal work, including conveyancing, handling deceased wills & probate, financial claims litigation including settlements, legal aid payments, account fees etc ...

The only person excluded from this deal, is you, the client.

So, while perhaps, your house purchase is delayed supposedly due to the signing of a few extra documents, or a few loose ends, or perhaps your dead wife's estate takes a whopping four years to be confirmed & finalised, or some other legal work or case you are involved in is taking years and hundreds of letters to achieve only a little momentum, your solicitor and their legal firm will be earning a significant rate of interest and finance, and the bank will be profiting from their holding of clients funds for a little longer, while you are none the wiser for what is going on.

Little doubt therefore remains as to why the legal profession has now turned against it’s once business partners in the financial community .. its all about money, and the lack of it, nothing to do with the public interest or improving the rights & entitlements of Scots when it comes to Justice & Law.

As it happens however, there is a more reasonable & public spirited approach to the matter, in the form of a Petition before the Scottish Parliament calling for class action litigation to be allowed in Scotland.

You can visit the Petition and sign it online HERE.

Please sign the petition, it is in your best interests that we as a country are not excluded from the legal rights & entitlements which hundreds of millions of others enjoy around the world.

Scottish class action procedure

Raised by: Peter Brown on 12 January 2009

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a class action procedure or similar in Scots Law to correspond with the legal systems of many other countries including England and the United States.

The background to the Petition can be read here : Background to Class Action Petition

A Brief extract of the Background to the Petition :

There is documented evidence (ref1) that some people are denied access to justice within the Scottish legal system for many reasons including their perception that court action is prohibitively expensive.

Specifically, in Scots Law there is no mechanism to allow a group of people with the same grievance to collectively take litigation action against a commercial company.

A Class Actions procedure in Scots Law has been called for since 1982 (ref2) and, in fact, was recommended in 1996 by the Scottish Law Commission (ref3). Draft court rules were also presented in this report. Nevertheless, in 2000 the Court of Session Rules Council decided that existing procedures were adequate and, hence, the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission has, to date, not been implemented.

The ongoing Scottish Civil Courts Review is currently considering the introduction of a Class Action procedure in conjunction with many other proposals. Its recommendations are due for publication in Spring 2009. This is a promising development but, as stated by Lord Gill at the consultation paper launch in November 2007, the review needs to ensure that [members of the publics] voice is heard and that their interests are central to any recommendations for reform that we make.

One can only wonder as to why the SNP controlled Scottish Government have not made it a priority to change the law allowing class actions, but as Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has always said, even on video, he will always protect the legal profession from just about anyone or anything .. so perhaps not too much need to wonder why there has been no action on the matter yet.

Here follows the Scotsman’s report on the Dean of Faculty ‘breaking ranks’, so to speak, and calling for class actions … against banks. How about allowing class actions, without restrictions, Mr Keen ?

QC: Allow class actions against banks

Published Date: 26 January 2009
By Jane Bradley and John Forsyth

ONE of Scotland's most senior lawyers is calling for ministers to scrap the restriction banning class actions in Scots law, a move that could see a wave of claims against banks.

The suggestion by Richard Keen, QC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, would open up the prospect of challenges by groups of shareholders against financial institutions over a lack of information about the state of their business.

It is understood that Scotland's legal profession believes there could be a raft of actions against Royal Bank of Scotland and other financial institutions on the basis that the information given out at the time of rights issues had been inadequate.

Mr Keen said: "The absence of class action certification inhibits pursuit of remedy. It is difficult to fund major litigation of that kind unless you can put together a class action."

Mr Keen's comments follow a string of calls from politicians demanding legal and political action to tackle the crisis – with RBS most in the firing line. Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said yesterday that he believed a parliamentary inquiry should be carried out into the banking crisis in Scotland.

He said any investigation should cover the Financial Services Authority and the role of politicians in overseeing the administration of the financial sector "to ask them why they were asleep on the job".

He said: "I'd rather favour a parliamentary investigation, not just into the Royal Bank of Scotland – that would be daft, as the Royal Bank of Scotland is only one of hundreds of banks worldwide which has got into serious trouble – but into the financial sector."

It emerged at the weekend that Christine Grahame, an SNP MSP, has written to Lothian and Borders Police, demanding that an investigation be carried out into RBS's conduct over its two rights issues last year, while Tavish Scott, MSP, the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, has called for an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

Under the leadership of Sir Fred Goodwin, RBS carried out its first £12 billion rights issue in April last year, when thousands of investors forked out £2 a share for a tranche of new stock in the firm. A second rights issue, in November, was shunned by investors and the government had to underwrite the £15 billion issue. RBS's fortunes have nosedived in recent months, with investors watching shares plummet, to close at 12.1p on Friday.

Mrs Grahame's letter told police she believed RBS "appeared to have committed a fraud".

RBS revealed last week it was on course for the biggest loss in UK corporate history, as it expected to write down as much as £20 billion on the falling value of its assets.

Mr Scott said: "I think the banks across the UK must have known what their financial position was much earlier than they were letting on, and that particularly applies to RBS.

"At the time they were asking investors for more money to help their financial position, as RBS giving a full picture of how strong or weak they were as a financial institution? I genuinely don't know, but I believe that the Serious Fraud Office should have a look at it."

He warned that a political inquiry could turn the crisis into a partisan issue and could detract from solving the question of whether investors were misled.

Just last week, the veteran lawyer Ian Hamilton lodged a small-claims action against RBS, saying he had been persuaded to buy 640 shares at the £2 offer price in its 2008 rights issue.

A spokeswoman for RBS refused to comment.

Influencing Justice reforms in Scotland worth ‘price of a mortgage allowance’ as MacAskill's ministerial aide gets £688 a month to fund capital flat

Nigel Don MSP, who is a Ministerial aide to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and also sits on Holyrood's Justice Committee as well as the Petitions Committee, has been revealed to be receiving some £688 a month from the taxpayer to pay for a mortgage on a flat in Edinburgh, after being reportedly involved in “coordinating” £765,000 in property deals to claim a controversial mortgage allowance”, according to an investigation in the Sunday Herald newspaper.

From the Sunday Herald story : “Nationalist MSP Nigel Don was unable to claim mortgage interest on a flat in Edinburgh as he lived in Dundee - which was too close to Holyrood for the subsidy.

But the SNP politician sold his family home of 19 years, bought a house in Aberdeen and then used his new found eligibility for the taxpayer-funded perk to buy a property in the capital"

The deals were completed a month before an independent review of MSP allowances backed the abolition of the mortgage scheme last year."

Mr Don recently appeared in video footage released from the Parliament, involving an important 'access to justice' petition, seeking to widen rights of audience in Scotland's courts, and widen public choice of legal services.

However, Mr Don's rebuttal to the Committee on the aims of Petition 1197, drew sharp breaths of curiosity as his comments went on to seemingly undermine and misinform members of the Petitions Committee as to the actual aims of the access to justice Petition, which you can listen to in the following video:

Nigel Don MSP gets it very wrong on Bill Alexander's 'access to justice' Petition

In view of Mr Don’s remarks, it seems an unusual Ministerial 'correction' was in order, as Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was forced to slap down Mr Don's lengthy comments in the above video, the required Ministerial ‘correction’ apparently coming after my earlier report on the matter which you can read here : Scottish Parliament calls for 'access to justice' moves as solicitors struggle to maintain monopoly on legal business

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr MacAskill, in his own submission to Holyrood's Petitions Committee, which is available on the Scottish Parliament's website HERE ended his letter to the Parliament with a surprising rebuke to Mr Don, claiming his own Parliamentary aide had got it wrong on the subject matter of the access to justice Petition which was under discussion.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was forced to correct Nigel Don’s 2½minute speech to Petitions Committee : "During the discussion, Nigel Don MSP suggested that the petitioner was looking “for individuals to represent themselves in the higher courts”. "However, the Government’s understanding is that Mr Alexander is petitioning for wider rights of audience so that suitable people can represent third parties in the courts with fewer restrictions than those appertaining at present."

The overall tone of Mr MacAskill's letter however, was still against the terms of the access to justice petition raised by Bill Alexander, Chairman of the Association of Commercial Attorneys, indicating at the very least, rather than Mr Don’s comments being a simple ‘misunderstanding’ of the Petition, Mr Don as Mr MacAskill's Parliamentary aide would have been well aware of the Scottish Government's policy against Petition 1197 going forward, and the Justice Secretary’s continuing attempts to block wider public access to justice in Scotland, in favour of supporting a continued Law Society monopoly on legal services.

I have reported on the Scottish Government & Mr MacAskill’s attitude towards reform to legal services & access to justice in Scotland, here : Non-lawyer rights of audience approved ‘with restrictions’ as Scottish Government continues to waver on access to justice reforms

Hands up anyone who could do with £688 a month to pay their mortgage ? Perhaps you should put in a nice letter to the Scottish Parliament, or someone in the SNP Government .. just don’t go writing letters to Kenny MacAskill asking for Justice on your case, because he’s too busy dodging his responsibilities to the rest of us if we aren’t colleagues in the legal profession ...

Here follows the Sunday Herald report on Nigel Don's £688 a month mortgage allowance paid for by you, the taxpayer.

Ministerial aide moves house ... and bills taxpayers £688 a month for capital flat

A Ministerial aide has admitted “coordinating” £765,000 in property deals to claim a controversial mortgage allowance that was about to be scrapped, reveal Paul Hutcheon and Tom Gordon.

A MINISTERIAL aide has admitted "coordinating" £765,000 in property deals to claim a controversial mortgage allowance that was about to be scrapped. Nationalist MSP Nigel Don was unable to claim mortgage interest on a flat in Edinburgh as he lived in Dundee - which was too close to Holyrood for the subsidy.

But the SNP politician sold his family home of 19 years, bought a house in Aberdeen and then used his new found eligibility for the taxpayer-funded perk to buy a property in the capital.

The deals were completed a month before an independent review of MSP allowances backed the abolition of the mortgage scheme last year.

Don told the Sunday Herald that his property move were a necessary part of a plan to boost the SNP's profile in marginal seats - with Dundee already represented by the SNP, the Nationalists wanted him to cover Aberdeen.

The MSP, who earns £55,381 a year, also described his publicly-funded mortage perk as "one of the compensations" of the job.

The revelations further discredit the Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance (EAA), which allows MSPs outwith commuting distance of the capital to charge the public for mortgage interest on a property in Edinburgh. The scheme is to be abolished in 2011.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that Don, elected to serve the North East in 2007, only became eligible for mortgage interest after a flurry of property deals.

He and his wife lived in Dundee's west end between 1989 and 2008.

Documents from Registers of Scotland show that Don, an aide to Justice Secretary Kenny Macaskill, made himself eligible for the allowance after selling his family home for £290,000 in January 2008.

Within the space of three weeks, he bought a £310,000 property in Aberdeen - which is within the radius of support for mortgage interest - and purchased a £165,000 flat in Edinburgh.

He then started to bill the public for the mortgage costs on his capital flat on St Clair Road.

The Justice Committee member's transactions were completed a month before an an independent review backed abolition of the mortage scheme.

MSPs have since voted to scrap the system in 2011 and no new entrants will be allowed to enter the scheme.

Don, who claimed £3281.85 in hotel costs before he became eligible for mortgage costs, can now draw on an £11,900 allowance to cover interest payments.

The Parliament's expenses database shows that in February last year, the month before the scheme was flagged up for abolition, Don started to claim £688 a month in mortgage costs.

In the same month, the former Dundee councillor billed the taxpayer £5089 in other costs associated with his move to Edinburgh.

He claimed £1057 for conveyancing, £1499 in legal fees, £329 in removables, as well as £223 in surveyors' costs.

As an MSP for the North East, Don is elected to represent nine constituencies in a region that runs from Dundee to Fraserburgh.

However, in an interview with the Sunday Herald, Don said he moved to Aberdeen to focus on the three constituencies that do not have an SNP base.

He said: "There are nine constituencies in the north east region, and the SNP has constituency members in six of them. The three which we don't are West Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen Central and Aberdeen South. At a practical level, my job is to cover those kinds of areas.

"Those are the areas where the party is expecting me to do the work, because the party already has cover in the other constituencies."

Asked whether he was aware that his move to Aberdeen would make him eligible for the mortgage perk, he said: "There's no doubt at all that, having established that if we were moving to Aberdeen, we would be eligible for some kind of accommodation allowance in Edinburgh, yes. Plainly we were aware of that. And as you say, the two were coordinated."

On whether he thought claiming mortgage interest was a sweetener for moving to Aberdeen, he said: "I would describe it as one of the compensations."

His property shake-up follows LibDem MSP Jamie Stone also signing up to the mortgage interest scheme at the 11th hour.

Stone stayed in a bed-and-breakfast in Edinburgh until early 2008, when he bought a £180,000 New Town flat weeks before the independent report was published.

Don's use of the allowances scheme emerged last week after the publication of Holyrood expenses, which the Sunday Herald can reveal also laid bare the practice of MSPs doling out public money to friends and colleagues.

A spokesman for the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "It is shocking to that any MSP could think it was acceptable to take advantage of taxpayers' generosity in this way. It also seems a remarkable coincidence that this gentleman should move so close to the publication of the review."

PAUL HUTCHEON'S FULL INTERVIEW WITH NIGEL DON

PAUL HUTCHEON (PH): "Some cynincs might say your property dealings were made to make yourself eligible for mortgage interest."

NIGEL DON (ND): "If you wanted to take that line, it would be very difficult for me to tell me you were wrong, but you are wrong. What you will realise, Paul, is that the North-East region stretches from Dundee to Fraserburgh. I was elected, much to my surprise, from my Dundee home in the very western tip of that area. It is an area far too big to cover from where I lived. What my wife and I did was to move up to Aberdeen, quite simply, to be able to do the job.

"I think you will also recognise the practical politics of that. There are nine constituencies in the north east region, and the SNP has constituency members in six of them. The three which we don't are West Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen Central and Aberdeen South. At a practical level, my job is to cover those kinds of areas."

PH: "So by moving to Aberdeen you were setting up a political base?"

ND: "Those are the areas where the party is expecting me to do the work, because the party already has cover in the other constituencies."

PH: "Were you aware that by moving to Aberdeen you were making yourself eligible for mortgage interest support?"

ND: "There's no doubt at all that, having established that if we were moving to Aberdeen, we would would be eligible for some kind of accommodation allowance in Edinburgh, yes. Plainly we were aware of that. And as you say, the two were coordinated."

PH: "Was claiming mortgage interest a sweetener for moving to Aberdeen?"

ND: "I would describe it as one of the compensations, Paul...There was no way I could operate from Dundee."

PH: "What would have prevented you from moving from Dundee to Aberdeen, but continuing to claim hotel expenses in Edinburgh, rather than mortgage interest?"

ND: "There would have been nothing physically to prevent me from doing so. Working out of a hotel for long is desperately difficult...it's not a very good way of doing a job. Secondly, by the time you have been there for a while, it quickly adds up to same sort of bills."

PH: "Your property dealings were completed weeks before the Langlands report backed the abolition of the mortgage interest scheme. Is this just a coincidence?"

ND: "I was just getting on with what had to be done. I was working within the rules of the time."

PH: "What did you mean when you said claiming mortgage interest was a 'compensation'?"

ND: "You suggested it was a benefit, and I downgraded it to a compensation."

PH: "Is it not fair to say that, if Labour had held Dundee West, then you would have continued to live where you were, as there would not have been an SNP base there?"

ND: "I think that's a perfectly fair view of what might have been. It's a perfectly rational view."