FASTER, cheaper and “less confrontational” ways to end civil disputes should be used to keep cases out of court, MSPs say.
The Holyrood Justice Committee recommends increased use of mediation, conciliation and arbitration as an alternative to costly court cases between individuals locked in business battles, neighbourhood rows, family feuds, consumer wrangles and other non-criminal arguments.
In a new report, the cross-party body says authorities should help make these methods more “accessible” across the country.
And while legal aid currently covers only mediation, which sees an independent third party help two sides find agreement, MSPs say consideration should now be given to extending this to the other dispute resolution methods.
In its inquiry into the subject, the committee took submissions from a range of legal and civil bodies, including the Law Society of Scotland, Relationships Scotland and the Association of British Travel Agents.
Committee convener Margaret Mitchell, who represents Central Scotland, said the recommendations included in the paper, which is released today, could “transform” the system, if they are implemented.
The Conservative MSP said: “The Scottish civil justice system could undergo a step change if we increase the use of less confrontational methods of resolving disputes.
“The committee heard compelling evidence about the benefits of alternative dispute resolution methods that already exist.
“However, barriers of knowledge, provision and funding can all too often prevent them from being realised. The ideas set out in this report could provide a road map for the Scottish Government and legal sector to transform the delivery of civil justice in Scotland.
“While there will always be a place for formal court proceedings, there needs to be greater awareness that quicker, more cost effective and less traumatic alternatives are often available.
“The committee considers that there is a pressing need for further system-wide training and awareness raising for the judiciary and legal profession.
“It is the committee’s aspiration that more people in Scotland will benefit from ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) in the future.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here