Civil Justice Reform

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 3:23 pm on 20 April 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jeremy Purvis Jeremy Purvis Liberal Democrat 3:23, 20 April 2006

The scope for debate on civil justice is broad; therefore, we have a broad motion from the Executive. Members will focus on the areas that are important to them. As the minister stated, everyone is touched by civil law, even if they are not aware of it. However, when they wish to enforce their rights under civil law, many people cannot easily access information and advice on their rights. As the minister stated, the costs are often disproportionate to the dispute issues, which puts many people off seeking redress.

I am glad that there will be a full judicially led review of the courts system, but I would like the review's remit to ensure that it knits closely with the work that is already being done with regard to access both to advice for legal assistance and to civil justice. Civil justice needs to be transparent, and transparency is about justice being seen to be done in a community or household. It is also about justice being accessible to people, easily available and easily understood.

Soon after I became the Liberal Democrat spokesman on justice, I said that someone with no legal background was not necessarily at a disadvantage in speaking about justice. However, my view—which has been confirmed over the past year—is that we could not have invented a system with a language that was more exclusive, elitist and inaccessible. I came across an example of that last week when I spoke to a constituent about the availability of legal aid in solemn cases. The constituent did not know what a solemn case was and was confused after reading the explanatory memorandum to the bill. They asked why the explanatory memorandum could not simply say in plain English that it was, for example, a judge and jury trial.

To say that the whole system is elitist and inaccessible is a generalisation. Some people work tirelessly for those who are not fortunate enough to be able to afford the best lawyers. One of the basic tenets of our approach in Scotland is that as a result of legal aid, people who cannot afford the best lawyer could have her or him represent them.

Some of our more modern reforms to the justice and protection system in Scotland, such as the children's hearings system, have adopted a far more relaxed and informal approach, which is more inclusive and accessible.

We can see how complex the system is in planning disputes and employment cases and even in small claims cases, which we have heard about. A website is available to help members of the public translate the jargon and terminology of procedures. Indeed, the victims of crime in Scotland website includes a section called "JargonBuster". There is a growing business in consultancy services for companies and individuals; they do not offer legal advice, but interpret the system to get legal advice. We need to change that.

For members of the public to access clear advice and information on the civil justice system and their rights, there needs to be consideration of finance. First and foremost, however, the priority must be to provide good-quality, clear and simple information on how the system works, the roles that individuals have and the rights that we enjoy. Such information must be accessible through websites, libraries, community councils, individuals and organisations; the issue should also be taught in schools. Kenny MacAskill made an important point about the many issues of civil law that we will face in the future, whether they concern a mobile phone contract or a rent agreement. We should teach children in our schools about such matters in citizenship courses, so that in high schools in particular children do not learn just about the Parliament and MSPs, but about the rights that they will enjoy as adults. We can enjoy legal rights only when we can exercise them.

When people receive legal advice, in both civil and criminal cases, or if they need advice on employment rights or in planning disputes, access should be equitable. The Executive has been frank in the past in saying that such access is not equitable and that the exclusion of many people on relatively low incomes from legal aid is one of the weaknesses in the current system; that is especially true of civil legal aid, because of a lack of strategic direction among the bodies that provide information and advice. A clear mechanism to relate the supply of services to assessment of need is lacking, as are any clear means to maintain a supply base, either of adequate numbers of solicitors for legal aid work or those who are not legally qualified but provide valuable information. Those ideas are not new; they are all part of the Executive's consultation. I advise Mr MacAskill that I will meet solicitors in Peebles tomorrow to discuss those very issues, which have been highlighted in the Executive's consultation on access.

We often underestimate the value of the voluntary sector in the civil justice system. If it were not for the voluntary sector, the system would grind to a halt. The voluntary sector provides legal advice from well-organised CAB offices and offers mediation services and financial assistance. Offering good-quality advice on people's rights and the law is vital. CAB offices are efficient. For every case in which people were given advice and assistance by a solicitor in 2004, there were over four times as many housing issues, hire purchase and debt issues, so there is no doubt that CAB offices and the voluntary bodies are efficient and even save money in the justice system.

I am delighted that there is to be a full-scale review of the civil justice system. I hope that the review of court operations will be about not just procedures, but access.