Action on Gill review

From the Cabinet, Secretary for Justice

I read with interest your recent comments in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland and readily acknowledge and agree that Lord Gill’s Review of the Scottish Civil Courts should be implemented without delay, at least insofar as those aspects which do not require primary legislation and which may be effected by administrative action.

A formal response from the Government to the recommendations of Lord Gill’s Review will issue later this year, but many of the interlocking recommendations will require primary legislation.

Although there is no time to introduce a Civil Courts Reform Bill in the current legislative programme, the Government and the court have already undertaken a range of action in prompt response to the recommendations. These consensual actions have been taken in advance of issuing a formal response, and without identification of a dedicated legislative vehicle. They include the adoption or the active consideration of relevant recommendations on McKenzie Friends, safeguarders, protective costs orders and class actions under the various provisions of the Legal Services and Children’s Hearings Bills and proposed revisions to the rules of court.

Other recommendations which have significant cost implications remain under consideration. Clearly, constraints on Government spending both now and for the foreseeable future will impact significantly on these recommendations. I have, however, instructed officials to consider the options for conducting a review of the cost and funding of litigation which, as Lord Gill noted, is a necessary part of the information required to underpin design of the recommended reforms. Implementation will need to be agreed, principally with the Lord President, the Court of Session and the judicially led Scottish Courts Service; it also needs to be carefully and jointly managed.

I note your comment that “consensus surrounds much of the Gill reforms”. You are no doubt aware of the response from the Faculty of Advocates, which expresses concern about the structural changes proposed to the court hierarchy. The Faculty’s response can be accessed at: www.advocates.org.uk/news/news_ 20100120.html . These are not the only concerns expressed, and all will require proper consideration.

I am copying this letter to the Editor of the Journal of the Law Society with a view to its publication in the Journal.

Kenny MacAskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice

Send your letters to: Email: [email protected] or by post to:

The Editor, The Journal, Studio 2001, Mile End, Paisley PA1 1JS f: 0141 561 0400