Scots Government has ‘no appetite’ for legal change
Scotland's government and legal establishment has been accused of continuing to drag its heels on reforms intended to open up the justice system and reduce the costs of litigation.
Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 were intended to end the country's legal closed shop by allowing people other than advocates and lawyers to have rights of audience in Scottish courts.
However the four sections of the 1990 act were dormant on the statute book for 17 years. They were finally implemented in Scotland by Jack McConnell's government on March 19. However, nine months on, no professional bodies have secured rights of audience for members.
The rights, which ended the legal closed shop in England and Wales in 1997, can be granted to professional organisations but not to individuals. The Scottish Government is insisting that, in order to qualify, any professional body must prove it has certain "safeguards" in place, including codes of conduct, training programmes and indemnity insurance.
Campaigners for access to justice suspect the Scottish government's failure to act on the reforms is because neither the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill nor the Lord President - who together must approve each and every application - have the appetite for change. The Association of Commercial Attorneys, whose 20 members
specialise in handling construction industry disputes, applied for rights of audience in Sheriff courts on June 29. Last month, the body was disappointed to receive a letter from the Lord President, Lord Hamilton suggesting it was insufficiently well-established to be able to properly regulate its own members and therefore that it would probably find itself ineligible for rights of audience.
David Whitton, Labour MSP for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, believes this is pure protectionism. He challenged MacAskill on this during a recent debate on the legal services in the parliament, and has sent three subsequent written questions on the matter. During the debate, Whitton asked MacAskill why the rights had not yet been granted to anyone. Whitton said: "I urge the cabinet secretary to put aside his earlier prejudice and give the people of Scotland the affordable choices that currently are enjoyed in the rest of the UK."
However MacAskill said he was "not convinced" that sections 25-29 would be of any benefit, and that he had not changed his views on the matter since writing an article in the Scotsman in February 2006. In this MacAskill said he had "yet to be convinced that the move would benefit the legal service, rather than make the situation worse There are good reasons for having a monopoly-regulated profession; otherwise, how do you regulate those not part of the organisation?"
MacAskill's public hostility to change appears to contradict what he said in a leaked letter to cabinet colleague John Swinney. In this, MacAskill said: "You will be interested to know that the commencement of the sections came in to effect on 19 March 2007 Guidance has been prepared that covers in some detail the provisions to be contained in draft schemes and the consideration of applications. I hope this reassures you that action has now been taken to increase consumer choice in the supply of legal service providers."
A spokesman for ACA said: "We are concerned that the cabinet secretary for justice - who has an involvement in the consideration of our application - has formed a view without putting forward any evidence to substantiate how he has arrived at his position."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: heavy, Glasgow on 11:07am Mon 3 Dec 07
As long standing campaigners for legal change in Scotland ,we more than most ,have vast experience in the manner in which our courts function.
Despite a number of inquiries by the previous Scottish Executive with thousands of victims providing proof of massive injustice and persecution of anyone prepared to stand up against the full weight of monopoly abuses ,Scotland remains a country almost completely devoid of REAL justice .
NOT the justice IMPOSED by the thousands of legal parasites and paper shufflers who are creating vast wealth for themselves on the backs of Scotlands hard working people.The removal of a lifetime of assets before a solitary judge.
We DEMAND all actions were land,business or property is decided in a court that only JURIES have the necessary impartiality to create the justice we demand.Mohamed Al Fayed DEMANDED only a jury for the death of his son and we also require the same minimum of protection from the ravages of a system of law that has for far to long ridden roughshod over our rights and freedoms.
The Justice Minister and Lord President are LONG STANDING members of the Law Society of Scotland ,first and foremost, and will do NOTHING to break the monopoly in our legal structures that has been so lucrative for everyone concerned in its running.Despite the Scottish Consumer Council,Which? and the Office of Fair trading DEMANDING change and the instigation of sections 25-29 into legislation they are STILL blocking alternative means for Scottish citizens to get some form of representation.
We have witness's at hearing in the Court of Session were the Lord President has been sitting with other law lords who COMPLETELY disregarded the laws protecting children ,children who could NOT get representation due to monopoly powers of the Law Society of Scotland .Decisions that left children homeless in utter breach of the Human Rights Act,Childrens Scotland Act and the UN conventions of the rights of a child.The ultimate goal being the theft of vast amounts of land and property and devoid of ANY justice
If CHILDREN are being utterly abused in our courts at the highest level and without any representation what chance do adults have?We have a sinister hold over Scotlands population by a small group of legal parasites that refuse to be dragged into the 21st century and continue to hold onto medieval forms of law that have allowed the fleecing of thousands of innocent victims of this utter tyranny.
Neither MacAskill or any other legalite will block the efforts of the victims who have fought long and hard for justice and recompense for the billions of pounds stolen from us by criminal collusion.
THAT THEY WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH ANY LONGER.
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
Masonic judges OUT Juries IN
As long standing campaigners for legal change in Scotland ,we more than most ,have vast experience in the manner in which our courts function.
Despite a number of inquiries by the previous Scottish Executive with thousands of victims providing proof of massive injustice and persecution of anyone prepared to stand up against the full weight of monopoly abuses ,Scotland remains a country almost completely devoid of REAL justice .
NOT the justice IMPOSED by the thousands of legal parasites and paper shufflers who are creating vast wealth for themselves on the backs of Scotlands hard working people.The removal of a lifetime of assets before a solitary judge.
We DEMAND all actions were land,business or property is decided in a court that only JURIES have the necessary impartiality to create the justice we demand.Mohamed Al Fayed DEMANDED only a jury for the death of his son and we also require the same minimum of protection from the ravages of a system of law that has for far to long ridden roughshod over our rights and freedoms.
The Justice Minister and Lord President are LONG STANDING members of the Law Society of Scotland ,first and foremost, and will do NOTHING to break the monopoly in our legal structures that has been so lucrative for everyone concerned in its running.Despite the Scottish Consumer Council,Which? and the Office of Fair trading DEMANDING change and the instigation of sections 25-29 into legislation they are STILL blocking alternative means for Scottish citizens to get some form of representation.
We have witness's at hearing in the Court of Session were the Lord President has been sitting with other law lords who COMPLETELY disregarded the laws protecting children ,children who could NOT get representation due to monopoly powers of the Law Society of Scotland .Decisions that left children homeless in utter breach of the Human Rights Act,Childrens Scotland Act and the UN conventions of the rights of a child.The ultimate goal being the theft of vast amounts of land and property and devoid of ANY justice
If CHILDREN are being utterly abused in our courts at the highest level and without any representation what chance do adults have?We have a sinister hold over Scotlands population by a small group of legal parasites that refuse to be dragged into the 21st century and continue to hold onto medieval forms of law that have allowed the fleecing of thousands of innocent victims of this utter tyranny.
Neither MacAskill or any other legalite will block the efforts of the victims who have fought long and hard for justice and recompense for the billions of pounds stolen from us by criminal collusion.
THAT THEY WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH ANY LONGER.
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
Masonic judges OUT Juries IN
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:03pm Mon 3 Dec 07
A bit hypocritical of David Whitton lecturing the SNP on legal matters. It may be Mr Whitton is himself granted an audience with a court if allegations reagrding Paul Greenls cheque are proved true
PAuline McNeill, Jim Wallace, Kenny McCaskill, Nicola Sturgeon are lawyers witha vested interest in stopping competition and the ALw Society and Faculty fo ADvocates are among the most corrupt organaisatiosn outside the Law Society -indeed the Faculty is famed for disciplining members that tell the truth eg Campbell and Findlay while allowing others (eg during the Sheridan case) and practically all the advocte deputes at the crown office to tell lies.
Am amazed this state sponsored monoploy ahs not fallen foul of EU and USA law
A bit hypocritical of David Whitton lecturing the SNP on legal matters. It may be Mr Whitton is himself granted an audience with a court if allegations reagrding Paul Greenls cheque are proved true
PAuline McNeill, Jim Wallace, Kenny McCaskill, Nicola Sturgeon are lawyers witha vested interest in stopping competition and the ALw Society and Faculty fo ADvocates are among the most corrupt organaisatiosn outside the Law Society -indeed the Faculty is famed for disciplining members that tell the truth eg Campbell and Findlay while allowing others (eg during the Sheridan case) and practically all the advocte deputes at the crown office to tell lies.
Am amazed this state sponsored monoploy ahs not fallen foul of EU and USA law
Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 1:02pm Mon 3 Dec 07
What was billed as the 'Scottish Legal Services Debate' at the Parliament seemed to be anything but.
About half of the time was given up to praise for the Law Society & lawyers in general, by various members, including Mr MacAskill, Bill Aitken & others. If that had happened in Westminster, suggestions of controlling the debate and what was discussed would have been raised .. but since its the Scottish Parliament, we don't do those kinds of things of course.
What the legal services 'debate' needs, is a level of impartiality we have not yet seen, MSPs willing to do something for the electorate, rather than simply protect the professions, and the Law Society's zeal to seemingly threaten anyone who would dare dispute or challenge it's own policy on legal services - which is to protect the monopoly.
Unless there is significant change in the minds of the Justice Secretary, and a change at the Justice Committee, we wont get much of a 'debate' and once again, the interests of a few at the very top of the legal profession will have won the day once again.
Mr MacAskill's comments in Parliament seem quite clear - people in Scotland do not deserve the same rights of access to justice as England, nor do we deserve better, independent, accountable regulation of both the present legal services framework, or the more opened model the OFT propose.
The leaked letter : http://www.flickr.co
m/photo_zoom.gne?id=
2049441451&size=o
Odd it is reported to Mr Swinney, that Sections 25-29 have been implemented, supposedly allowing a more opened legal services market, and now they don't want to open up access to justice ...
One would have thought Mr Swinney himself should have been raising questions of the contradictory nature of what he was told, and what Parliament was told too ...
What was billed as the 'Scottish Legal Services Debate' at the Parliament seemed to be anything but.
About half of the time was given up to praise for the Law Society & lawyers in general, by various members, including Mr MacAskill, Bill Aitken & others. If that had happened in Westminster, suggestions of controlling the debate and what was discussed would have been raised .. but since its the Scottish Parliament, we don't do those kinds of things of course.
What the legal services 'debate' needs, is a level of impartiality we have not yet seen, MSPs willing to do something for the electorate, rather than simply protect the professions, and the Law Society's zeal to seemingly threaten anyone who would dare dispute or challenge it's own policy on legal services - which is to protect the monopoly.
Unless there is significant change in the minds of the Justice Secretary, and a change at the Justice Committee, we wont get much of a 'debate' and once again, the interests of a few at the very top of the legal profession will have won the day once again.
Mr MacAskill's comments in Parliament seem quite clear - people in Scotland do not deserve the same rights of access to justice as England, nor do we deserve better, independent, accountable regulation of both the present legal services framework, or the more opened model the OFT propose.
The leaked letter : http://www.flickr.co
m/photo_zoom.gne?id=
2049441451&size=o
Odd it is reported to Mr Swinney, that Sections 25-29 have been implemented, supposedly allowing a more opened legal services market, and now they don't want to open up access to justice ...
One would have thought Mr Swinney himself should have been raising questions of the contradictory nature of what he was told, and what Parliament was told too ...
Posted by: heavy, Glasgow on 1:26pm Mon 3 Dec 07
This article and comments of the Justice Minister have been forwarded to the Scottish Consumer Council,Which and the Office of Fair Trading .
Also the quote by him
"There are good reasons for having a monopoly-regulated profession; otherwise, how do you regulate those not part of the organisation?"
That quote is a clear breach of monopoly laws and could be classed as CRIMINAL in nature.That a member of the Scottish Government supports major abuses of MONOPOLY laws also breaches of the European Union's Competition laws.
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
Masonic judges OUT Juries IN
This article and comments of the Justice Minister have been forwarded to the Scottish Consumer Council,Which and the Office of Fair Trading .
Also the quote by him
"There are good reasons for having a monopoly-regulated profession; otherwise, how do you regulate those not part of the organisation?"
That quote is a clear breach of monopoly laws and could be classed as CRIMINAL in nature.That a member of the Scottish Government supports major abuses of MONOPOLY laws also breaches of the European Union's Competition laws.
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
Masonic judges OUT Juries IN
Posted by: John S, Edinburgh on 1:38pm Mon 3 Dec 07
Interesting. After much grinding of axes, the provisions are made law and only one body is applies. Would seem to indicate that it is not just the Scottish Government that lacks the appetite but also those bodies who wished the provisions to come into force.
Interesting. After much grinding of axes, the provisions are made law and only one body is applies. Would seem to indicate that it is not just the Scottish Government that lacks the appetite but also those bodies who wished the provisions to come into force.
Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 1:51pm Mon 3 Dec 07
#John S
Correct.
To be fair to the current SNP Government, previous administrations have done little also on this issue, and not only is there a 'lack of appetite for change' on the part of many bodies involved in the legal services market process ... there is a significant degree of overt obstruction from those same bodies to changing the legal services market landscape to a model which would reduce long held monopolies.
An example of the way previous administrations have treated the issue might be summed up in a sitting Lord Advocate's thoughts on even repealing Sections 25-29 - hardly one would have thought a policy for promoting wider access to legal services, and such comment from the then senior legal officer in the Government raises concern as to why wider access to justice has never been implemented - and even now faces obstructions from Mr MacAskill & several MSPs.
Leaked email from the then Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, proposing repeal of Sections 25-29 : http://www.flickr.co
m/photo_zoom.gne?id=
456887991&size=o
It is surely for the current Government to remedy the problems of access to justice - but only impartiality and thought for the public interest will serve the day on that note, not thought for maintaining a long held monopoly for the legal profession over who gets to a lawyer and at what price.
#John S
Correct.
To be fair to the current SNP Government, previous administrations have done little also on this issue, and not only is there a 'lack of appetite for change' on the part of many bodies involved in the legal services market process ... there is a significant degree of overt obstruction from those same bodies to changing the legal services market landscape to a model which would reduce long held monopolies.
An example of the way previous administrations have treated the issue might be summed up in a sitting Lord Advocate's thoughts on even repealing Sections 25-29 - hardly one would have thought a policy for promoting wider access to legal services, and such comment from the then senior legal officer in the Government raises concern as to why wider access to justice has never been implemented - and even now faces obstructions from Mr MacAskill & several MSPs.
Leaked email from the then Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, proposing repeal of Sections 25-29 : http://www.flickr.co
m/photo_zoom.gne?id=
456887991&size=o
It is surely for the current Government to remedy the problems of access to justice - but only impartiality and thought for the public interest will serve the day on that note, not thought for maintaining a long held monopoly for the legal profession over who gets to a lawyer and at what price.
Business
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (6)
