Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 07 November 2013
07 Nov 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Tribunals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Sometimes it takes weeks to hear repetition in the chamber, but when it does we tend to think, “Oh, no! Not that again.” However, we are less than an hour into this debate and members should believe me when I say that they will hear much the same from me as they did from others, so I ask them to enjoy themselves and try to keep awake.
There is, so far, broad consensus on the bill, its principles and most of its proposed measures. That consensus not only applies in the Parliament; it applies among many who submitted their views and gave evidence. There were criticisms, but those had a sympathetic reception from the committee, which is keen to see them addressed as the bill progresses.
The advantages of reform of tribunals were acknowledged—those include greater economies of scale and sharing of good practice and resources—but there was also a strong desire to retain the special support and knowledge that are embodied in the current arrangements. Basically, we do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. We want to keep the lay involvement, the less adversarial approach and the simpler and relatively informal user-centred nature of existing tribunals. I hope that those principles will be made explicit in the bill, with the fundamental characteristics of tribunals set out in it.
It was also felt to be important that the bill be drafted in such a way that reserved tribunals could be brought into the structure at a later date.
The Law Society of Scotland welcomes the bill, but has expressed concern about judicialisation of tribunals eroding their character. I agree that there is a danger that judicial members who would be appointed under the legislation would not understand the informality or the centrality of the user in the tribunal process. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to consider what additional safeguards can be included to avoid that. In particular, there must be a direction in the bill that the president’s discretion on appointments should be used to ensure that judicial members have the necessary expertise and understanding of the tribunal and its context.
Although many submissions suggested ways to improve the bill to protect the characters of the tribunals, some people were not convinced that that is possible. The Lands Tribunal for Scotland questioned the efficiency of the approach, and whether it would be able to adapt—without creating significant problems—to the one-size-fits-all structure. It put its case strongly, and the committee was persuaded to urge the Scottish Government to think again about its inclusion. The valuation appeals committee was also concerned about the impact of imposing age limits, which would see over half of its membership lost.
The Mental Health Tribunal also has unique characteristics, and there is support for its being retained in a chamber of its own. However, the worry is that that would be a temporary measure by the Scottish Government, so there must be long-term commitment to that arrangement for that tribunal.
The other big area in which reassurances are sought is the children’s hearing system. It has already been subjected to reform, which adds to the need for care when we are considering further change. It is important that regulations in respect of the children’s hearings system be laid under the affirmative procedure in order to ensure that there is adequate consultation and parliamentary consideration of proposals.
There are also various concerns about costs. Although we recognise that there is the potential to save money through elimination of duplication and adoption of common administrative and other resources, there will be costs involved in the transition. Long-term savings are one thing, but we should not risk being unsuccessful by trying to make the transition on the cheap.
Fees and charges are also important, as recent controversy over fees for the reserved employment tribunals has highlighted. Some devolved tribunals also have charges and fees. Therefore, provision for them has been included in the bill, but it is important to ensure that that does not open the door to new charges being imposed where none previously existed, and that it does not become a platform for significant increases in existing charges. The committee proposes that any such charges be subject to consultation of users and stakeholders.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is the enforceability of tribunals’ awards. More than 50 per cent of awards are not paid, or are not paid in full. As part of our discussions, we should consider how to address that.
Although I was not a member of the Justice Committee at the time, I spoke in the debate on the matter last year. I said that I was in favour of reducing overlap and eliminating duplication as long as the overlap and duplication are genuine and their elimination does not involve putting square pegs into round holes. We have had the consultation and the committee has considered the bill. My view is that such a reduction is the intention of the bill, but work remains to be done to ensure that it achieves that in practice.
I am content to support the bill at stage 1, but with my fellow committee members, I will look for significant improvements to be introduced at stage 2.
15:26
There is, so far, broad consensus on the bill, its principles and most of its proposed measures. That consensus not only applies in the Parliament; it applies among many who submitted their views and gave evidence. There were criticisms, but those had a sympathetic reception from the committee, which is keen to see them addressed as the bill progresses.
The advantages of reform of tribunals were acknowledged—those include greater economies of scale and sharing of good practice and resources—but there was also a strong desire to retain the special support and knowledge that are embodied in the current arrangements. Basically, we do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. We want to keep the lay involvement, the less adversarial approach and the simpler and relatively informal user-centred nature of existing tribunals. I hope that those principles will be made explicit in the bill, with the fundamental characteristics of tribunals set out in it.
It was also felt to be important that the bill be drafted in such a way that reserved tribunals could be brought into the structure at a later date.
The Law Society of Scotland welcomes the bill, but has expressed concern about judicialisation of tribunals eroding their character. I agree that there is a danger that judicial members who would be appointed under the legislation would not understand the informality or the centrality of the user in the tribunal process. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to consider what additional safeguards can be included to avoid that. In particular, there must be a direction in the bill that the president’s discretion on appointments should be used to ensure that judicial members have the necessary expertise and understanding of the tribunal and its context.
Although many submissions suggested ways to improve the bill to protect the characters of the tribunals, some people were not convinced that that is possible. The Lands Tribunal for Scotland questioned the efficiency of the approach, and whether it would be able to adapt—without creating significant problems—to the one-size-fits-all structure. It put its case strongly, and the committee was persuaded to urge the Scottish Government to think again about its inclusion. The valuation appeals committee was also concerned about the impact of imposing age limits, which would see over half of its membership lost.
The Mental Health Tribunal also has unique characteristics, and there is support for its being retained in a chamber of its own. However, the worry is that that would be a temporary measure by the Scottish Government, so there must be long-term commitment to that arrangement for that tribunal.
The other big area in which reassurances are sought is the children’s hearing system. It has already been subjected to reform, which adds to the need for care when we are considering further change. It is important that regulations in respect of the children’s hearings system be laid under the affirmative procedure in order to ensure that there is adequate consultation and parliamentary consideration of proposals.
There are also various concerns about costs. Although we recognise that there is the potential to save money through elimination of duplication and adoption of common administrative and other resources, there will be costs involved in the transition. Long-term savings are one thing, but we should not risk being unsuccessful by trying to make the transition on the cheap.
Fees and charges are also important, as recent controversy over fees for the reserved employment tribunals has highlighted. Some devolved tribunals also have charges and fees. Therefore, provision for them has been included in the bill, but it is important to ensure that that does not open the door to new charges being imposed where none previously existed, and that it does not become a platform for significant increases in existing charges. The committee proposes that any such charges be subject to consultation of users and stakeholders.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is the enforceability of tribunals’ awards. More than 50 per cent of awards are not paid, or are not paid in full. As part of our discussions, we should consider how to address that.
Although I was not a member of the Justice Committee at the time, I spoke in the debate on the matter last year. I said that I was in favour of reducing overlap and eliminating duplication as long as the overlap and duplication are genuine and their elimination does not involve putting square pegs into round holes. We have had the consultation and the committee has considered the bill. My view is that such a reduction is the intention of the bill, but work remains to be done to ensure that it achieves that in practice.
I am content to support the bill at stage 1, but with my fellow committee members, I will look for significant improvements to be introduced at stage 2.
15:26
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08145, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill.
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham)
SNP
I am delighted to open this stage 1 debate on the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Justice Committee for its scrutiny of the bill at stage 1 and for th...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
The minister says that there will be an assignment, rather than an appointment. There is public expectation that the post and person specifications will be c...
Roseanna Cunningham
SNP
We want to ensure that the Lord President’s role is paramount. Members need to keep that in mind. I do not want to get into the business of defining matters ...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
I shall say this very slowly: I am amending parts of my speech.
Roseanna Cunningham
SNP
I thought that that might be the case.Members need to keep it in mind that each tribunal was created by an act of Parliament. They are all required to operat...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Thank you, minister. If “courtification” is not a word, it should be. I call Christine Grahame to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee—you have 10 minute...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
Heavens.It says in my notes, “Welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate”. I think that that might be going a bit too far. I speak on behalf of the Justi...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I am sure that Mr Stevenson will tell me about an even greater tumbleweed debate.
Stewart Stevenson
SNP
I wonder whether the member remembers the Court of Session Act 1693—Laughter.. It specifically says that“no person presume to speake after the Lords begin to...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I liked the last bit, but the idea that I was around in 1693 is a bit wounding.By way of introduction, I will take members on a brief journey through the mix...
Roseanna Cunningham
SNP
It is assignment.
Christine Grahame
SNP
Thank you.The president will be responsible for the efficient disposal of tribunal business. Currently, only a senator of the College of Justice can be assig...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Courtification.
Christine Grahame
SNP
I will need to develop adjectives and adverbs now.We concluded that how legal members of tribunals are referred to was a matter for individual tribunals to d...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Thank you, Ms Grahame. It might be helpful to members if I advise that we have a little time in hand. If members take interventions, the Presiding Officers w...
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Lab
The Scottish Parliament has, over the years, debated many bills that have attracted significant media and public attention. Bills have given the entitlement ...
Stewart Stevenson
SNP
I wonder whether it would be helpful to look at the way that the Scottish Parliament information centre has described what a tribunal is. It seems to me that...
Elaine Murray
Lab
I thank the member for his intervention. That was along the lines of some of the suggestions that were made to the committee, and I think that we will be kee...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
As tribunals form an important part of our civil justice system, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate on the general principles of the T...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
I would be delighted.
Margaret Mitchell
Con
According to that committee, a tribunal is“A body which resolves disputes between citizens and state and between private parties by making binding decisions ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
We move to the open debate. There is a modest amount of time in hand for interventions.15:14
Colin Keir (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
SNP
I am not terribly sure that I am delighted to be speaking here today, but it is my last hurrah as a member of the Justice Committee. There is an element of d...
Christine Grahame
SNP
Mention them again.
Colin Keir
SNP
No—I refuse to mention them again. Ms Grahame should just sit there. She has had her shot.Anyway, use of affirmative procedure will provide some parliamentar...
John Pentland (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Lab
Sometimes it takes weeks to hear repetition in the chamber, but when it does we tend to think, “Oh, no! Not that again.” However, we are less than an hour in...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I declare my interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates.As members are aware, the UK Government ha...
Stewart Stevenson
SNP
Will Roderick Campbell give way?
Roderick Campbell
SNP
I am not sure that I have time, to be honest, but I will give way if the intervention is brief.