Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 07 November 2013

07 Nov 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Tribunals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Cunningham, Roseanna SNP Perthshire South and Kinross-shire Watch on SPTV

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 all the way down the line, in the way that the member might be suggesting. If that is not what the member meant, he will no doubt come back to the issue.

That rather leads me to the debate about whether the term “judge” should be specified in the bill. I note that some people have suggested that legal members on tribunals should be called tribunal judges, so as not to imply that they have a lesser status than court judiciary. However, all members of tribunals, whether they be legal or ordinary, are taking judicial decisions and should therefore have the same status. The bill achieves that aim by giving all members judicial status and capacity.

The bill is designed to create a new structure for devolved tribunals. I am not aware of any devolved tribunal that currently uses the term “judge”. We must not forget that users are at the centre of what we are creating. I am aware that the term “judge” is not popular with the majority of tribunal stakeholders, who fear a drift towards courtification—which may or may not be a word, but people understand what it means—and a more adversarial approach to tribunal hearings. However, it is for individual tribunals to determine what they call themselves during hearings informally. That therefore does not need to be explicit in the bill. However, I look forward to hearing members’ views on the issue during the debate.

There has been interest throughout the development of the bill, from consultation to the committee evidence sessions, that the particular nature and characteristics of the individual tribunals should be protected in the new structure. If anything, that has probably been the prevailing sentiment expressed to us all in one way or another. I fully agree with that view and I am confident that we have ensured that there is the right balance in the bill. The bill has to be flexible enough to allow the new structure to accommodate the different tribunals. By providing adequate safeguards, we ensure that each tribunal’s specialism and ethos is protected.

The committee has recommended that an amendment is made to the bill at stage 2 to allow for permanent members of the tribunals. Although there is no need for permanent members now, I accept that it might be a requirement in the future. I therefore intend to make an amendment to allow for permanent tribunal members should the need arise. I hear the convener of the Justice Committee sighing—I suspect that I may already have dealt a blow to part of her speech.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 07 November 2013

In the same item of business