Hansard

I think that we should give a vote of thanks to Mr Kelly for managing to speak for eight minutes.

I welcome the broad agreement across the chamber on this issue. We have managed to find various routes into the debate, which has been fascinating—and the debate has been an awful lot more interesting than some of us might have expected. For example, we had Mr Pearson with his gladiatorial approach to saying nice things to Mr McLetchie, which is always very nice to see. I have decided that the best name for Mr McLetchie these days is Grand Tribune, which I think sounds very statesmanlike.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s consultation. We have heard of the importance of the tribunal system and its place in the legal system. Any new legislation that proposes to make the tribunal system—which at times looks unwieldy and difficult to understand and is in some cases intimidating to those taking part—more streamlined and easier to understand should be welcomed.

The key issue is clarity. Over the years, the different tribunals’ differences of approach have led to some confusion. It would be logical to bring the tribunals together with a common structure under the leadership of the Lord President of the Court of Session—although he will be able to delegate responsibilities—and to create a new position of president of the Scottish tribunals.

The Scottish ministers appoint most tribunal members and set the rules and regulations for tribunals, so it could be thought that tribunals are not as independent as they could be.

Statutory provision for a devolved Scottish tribunal system with scope for integration with the reserved UK tribunals that operate in Scotland could make the administration and law of tribunals more understandable. I hope that the continuing discussions between the Scottish Government and Westminster on that are fruitful, and I encourage the minister in that regard.

Service users must be at the heart of any changes to the system. Jenny Marra, who is not in the chamber at the moment, mentioned that important point. A man or woman who embarks on dispute resolution must have confidence in the impartiality of the particular tribunal that they use. Christine Grahame also mentioned that.

I have never served on anything that was called a tribunal. My closest personal experience of something akin to the tribunal system was when I was the convener of the City of Edinburgh Council regulatory committee—a quasi-judicial committee that heard objections to licence applications from the police and others before coming to a determination.

I chaired many of that committee’s meetings, and it was clear that applicants did not always understand the process, which usually required them to engage a legally qualified person for advice. Just as important, they did not fully understand the appeal process, which entailed an extremely expensive journey to the sheriff court.

The proposed new two-tier tribunal system would help people who require a determination through a tribunal. Most disputes would be settled at stage 1—I agree with those who called for better early intervention—and the upper tier would deal with any subsequent appeals, so the system would be set up to avoid any visits to court.

We have heard a lot about the process, and I will now give a practical example of why we require a simplified system. Citizens advice bureaux provide significant support to and representation of clients in relation to many legal issues, including representation at benefits tribunals and employment tribunals and in small claims cases and repossession proceedings.

The number of tribunals at which CABx provided representation increased to 4,000 in 2010-11—an increase of 87 per cent on the 2009-10 figures. The number of court or tribunal documents that the CABx prepared more than doubled to 16,000 in 2010-11. Members may be interested to know that the increase in representation was mainly driven by a 58 per cent increase in the number of welfare tribunals at which an adviser provided representation.

That volume of activity represents a huge draw on the limited resources and time of the CABx and places a great strain on a service that helps every client who requires assistance. The figures strongly indicate that the number of benefits cases in which representation is required is likely to continue to increase as the welfare system continues to undergo change.

Appeals are becoming an increasing part of the workload for CAB welfare advisers. Although tribunal appeals make up only 10 per cent of benefits cases, they take up a significant amount of adviser time and resources. Therefore, more efficiency in the tribunal system would assist not only the system’s secretariat but those who help others.