Hansard

In its way, the debate—enjoined as it is to the Government’s consultation paper on a new tribunal system for Scotland, as announced by the minister on March 23—will, I opine, help to redefine significant elements and redraw the geography of common and fair justice in Scotland.

Many members have mentioned the Philip review. As the chairman, Lord Philip, said in his foreword to the 2008 report,

“Tribunals are now a vital part of Scotland’s justice system”.

When Sir Andrew Leggatt produced his report, “Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service”, in 2001, which had a much more significant impact on England and Wales, it did not—and perhaps could not—address all the complications of subsidiary justice in our devolved country, because of the complications involving tribunals that dealt with reserved matters, those that dealt with devolved subjects pre-1999 and those that dealt with devolved matters post-1999. Having sat on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee as it has wrestled with the Land Registration (Scotland) Bill, I know that the issue of land tribunals has come quite significantly into play.

Although the Leggatt report was sound, it did not address Scotland’s needs. The Philip report quite rightly indicated that the system was fragmented, complex, insufficiently independent and lacking in quality and it pointed out that tribunals seemed to have passed some inconsistent or erroneous judgments.

It is clear that we are talking about something that is an integral part of our judicial system—a devolved and independent system that presides over—as the minister indicated and which Christine Grahame honestly learned—80,000 cases and involves more than 40 tribunals in Scotland. It is not objective or independent and is possibly—perhaps inevitably—unfair.

I welcome the fact that, since the Scottish Tribunals Service was launched in 2010, it has supported six tribunals. Of course, we have much more to do to square that particular circle. In a modern just Scotland, there has to be a system that secures best practice and avoids duplication—a system that is cost effective, secure, consistent, cohesive, which allows ease of communication and which makes justice work quickly, in the interests of coming to an agreement and avoiding people having to have recourse to expensive court action. It is better to have a quicker and less costly way to solve disputes. An efficient and all-embracing tribunals service is the way to do that.

I welcome the Government’s consultation and look forward to the report that will be produced once the consultation closes on 15 June. The measures are overdue, which is why I suggest that the debate and the consultation sequitors will redefine the boundaries of fairness and justice in Scotland.

Although we must retain the benefits and specialisms in law, I suggest that there must be an increasing and transparent role for more legal arbitration on disputes. We require to develop new rules. I welcome the possibility—indeed, the probability—of a new process of dispute resolution at a point not too far in the future. I know that that is a matter that will not be kicked into the long grass by the minister.

I understand that some tribunals are funded by sponsoring departments in the UK Government and elsewhere. That is not independent. I also understand that members of reserved tribunals are appointed by a judicial appointments procedure and others go through a public appointments system. That is not independent either. We need to ensure that all tribunal members are appointed appropriately and are suitably trained to ensure and, indeed, to secure objectivity and impartiality in their decision making. I welcome also the Government’s intention to seek independent advice to ensure that tribunal members are appropriately remunerated.

The objective is that there will be no duplication of training, administration or information technology systems across devolved tribunals. Simples.

As the paper suggests, we need a two-tier tribunals service that will deal with all matters—reserved and devolved—to handle dispute resolution, with a subject-based first tier that makes all decisions and is buttressed by an upper tier to which appeals can be referred. I hope that that upper tier would be used infrequently.

A smart and just Scotland needs to fit in place this piece of our national jigsaw in order to deliver openness, efficiency, responsiveness, consistency and fairness—our sense of fairness.



There will, of course, be Jeremiahs who will question, for example, the nearly £12 million to be spent on tribunals in the coming year, but that is another instance of sound preventative spend. If we achieve what we set out to achieve, I ask them this: what price fair, effective and speedy dispute resolution?

I support the motion.

16:05