Meeting of the Parliament 21 May 2014
That is a fair point. It is important to put on record that the whole purpose of Lord Gill’s review is to ensure that we get access to justice because the system is “slow, inefficient and expensive”. I have narrated that, but it also important to mention Sheriff Principal Taylor’s additional point, because it is not simply about complex cases, such as asbestos cases, going to the Court of Session. Sheriff Principal Taylor made it quite clear—and we will respond to this point in due course—that sanction for counsel applies on the basis of not just the length of a case or its complexity, but equality of arms.
If an insurance company or another party to the action turns up with Queen’s counsel or an advocate, parity will be important—indeed, in fairness, equality of arms indicates that there should be parity. That means, I think, that Sheriff Principal Taylor is looking at an extension—not simply the length and complexity of a case but equality of arms. I hope that those points reassure Mr McNeil, who makes a valuable point that is echoed by Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which, as everyone in the chamber knows, does an outstanding job.
I expect to announce the Scottish Government’s response to Sheriff Principal Taylor’s review before stage 2 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. I have commented on this already, but the review recommends that the sheriff should be able to ensure that no party gains an undue advantage by virtue of the resources that are available to them. Sheriff Principal Taylor also told the Justice Committee that it is very rare for sanction for counsel to be refused in the sheriff court.
In addition, we have agreed to lodge amendments to the bill to ensure that the test for remitting cases from the sheriff court to the Court of Session—where sanction for counsel is automatic—is not too strict.
In relation to workplace injuries, under section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013—a reserved piece of legislation—the strict liability of employers for workplace accidents is removed. The Scottish Trades Union Congress argues that that will make it harder to bring workplace injury cases. I have had discussions with the STUC and we are considering what, if anything, we can do to mitigate the effects of that change, which has been brought about by the Government in Westminster.
We have taken stakeholders’ views and we are actively considering the Justice Committee’s report. I am happy to continue engaging in discussions with Clydeside Action on Asbestos, the STUC and others and to reflect on views as the bill progresses. However, we cannot undermine the fundamental principle of the bill, which is to deliver efficient and affordable civil justice, as Lord Gill intended.
Lord Gill has stated that the system is ready; that litigants will benefit from the reforms; and that the reforms are long overdue. The bill will ensure that our civil justice system becomes more accessible, affordable and efficient.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill.