Hansard

This is a potentially interesting subject for someone who happens to be one of the many users of the tribunals service. I draw members’ attention to the ministerial foreword to the consultation document, which talks about the

“shared commitment to ensuring that public services are of high quality”.

I am sure that we can all go along with that. It goes on to talk about how

“A modern legal framework commands public confidence”.

Some of the previous speakers’ remarks show how that is important because one of the purposes of the tribunals—again, this is referred to in the ministerial foreword—is to protect

“people from unfair treatment by the state, by businesses or by other people.”

Social justice should be at the heart of everything that we do, and those aims are very commendable.

Judicial independence has been referred to. The minister talked about being fair, open and impartial, and I welcome the oversight of the Lord President, which will be important as we move forward.

In improving the system, it is important to retain the benefits of the existing system and to protect the unique and specific elements that will transfer to the first tier. Given the caveat of right of appeal to the court or a judicial review, it is correct that the first tier will hear and make decisions on appeals. Reference has been made to the speed of appeals and, again, that is important so long as it does not come at the expense of justice. Distress is often felt by the appellant’s partner or family because of the inherent delays in the existing system. With the first tier, it is important to recognise that a confident organisation will reconsider its decisions and correct, amend or set them aside if that is appropriate.

On a practical aspect, I am reassured that existing terms and conditions will be transferred, and that specific workloads will go with the tribunals.

The tribunals package is set within the wider context of the making justice work programme, which was launched last year. We have heard from the minister about shared venues and administrative support leading to continuous improvement and savings, which can be redirected.

Since 2010, the Scottish Tribunals Service has supported six tribunals—I do not think that I need to mention them all—and they are all vital to our communities, so they must be properly resourced. In 2011-12, £1 million has been saved and there is prospect of saving £5 million overall; some of those savings will transfer immediately to the tier 1 system. The system must be resilient; that is very important.

The minister referred to the Scottish committee of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council—a snappy title—and its report, “Tribunal Reform in Scotland: A Vision for the Future”. I will focus on accessibility, which is one aspect of that report.

With some tribunals, the impression from the outset was that they would be for the layperson. However, that is certainly not my experience of employment tribunals, where there is discomfort about parity of representation and lack of legal representation. Such issues invariably turn a tribunal into the reverse of a layperson’s forum: a legal forum.

Accessibility relates not only to geography. There is an opportunity to use technological advances that do not disadvantage rural communities or people with mobility or language issues. That is referred to in the consultation document. The equality impact assessment will consider that. That is again in line with Lord Gill’s principles in the civil courts review. I make a specific plea for a role for Gaelic in the Lands Tribunal, if not in the other forums.

I welcome the standardisation of the appointment of tribunal chairs and members. As we have heard, the approach in the past has been fragmented. Resilience is required to deal with the developments to which Mr McLetchie alluded—the absorption from other jurisdictions—and future creations of this Parliament or elsewhere. On the exchange between the minister and Mr McLetchie, the discussions that the minister mentioned, which are on-going, follow on from the merger of courts and tribunals in England and Wales in April last year. Although the tribunal arm of that new body can be effective in Scotland, the court arm cannot, so we await with interest the formal consultation on that from the Ministry of Justice this year. I am sure that, through the discussions that have been alluded to, we can agree on budget transfer and the timetable for implementation.

Another of Lord Gill’s principles is the encouragement of early resolution. Certainly in my time, employment tribunals latterly operated on the basis that they would not deal with any case in which in-house procedure had not been exhausted. It is important that we have good employer-employee relations and robust grievance procedures and that mediation and management training take place. I mention mediation services and training because those are often the focus of cuts. However, if we are focusing on preventative spend, those are important elements that certainly should not be cut.

It is welcome that there is to be judicial involvement in the upper-tier tribunal. It is important that the term “leadership” is used in relation to the Lord President, given the roles that the Lord President will be expected to undertake, which include training, welfare, guidance, appraisal and discipline of the tribunal judiciary, chairs and members—I hope that that task will not have to be done with any frequency. Importantly, the Lord President will also have a role in the allocation of cases.

I commend a phrase from one of the documents with which we have been provided, which states that we need a system that will

“be fair and accessible, cost effective and efficient and make proportionate use of resources.”

I commend the motion.

15:33