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

Grahame, Christine SNP Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale Watch on SPTV

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 determine and therefore recommended that provision be made in the bill to give tribunals that flexibility. The bill also allows judicial members to act as members of the first-tier and upper tribunals, if authorised to do so. If members do not know what we are talking about with regard to upper and first-tier tribunals, they will need to look at the briefings on them, or somebody else in the chamber will explain—I am looking round at colleagues. [Laughter.] However, I am not too hopeful, given that sound.

We were concerned that allowing judicial members to act as members of the first-tier and upper tribunals would lead to over-judicialisation—I think that that is a word—of the tribunals and make them more formal. We were also concerned that the court judiciary might not have sufficient specialised knowledge and experience of tribunal work to carry out the proposed role. We were concerned, too, about the possible impact on the diversity of appointments to tribunals and that perhaps the current gender and other imbalances within the judiciary would be replicated. I think that Margaret Mitchell might develop that issue. I have a feeling that I have pressed a button there.

The committee concluded that the nature and characteristics of tribunals should be protected, but we recognised the benefits of the provision on membership of first-tier and upper tribunals. We therefore concluded that the provision could be applied effectively using the president of tribunals’ discretion, with possible consultation with the relevant chamber president. As I said, I will leave it to others to explain about chambers.

The definition of a tribunal is a tricky one. Because there is an issue about protecting the particular characteristics and nature of tribunals, a number of witnesses suggested that the definition of a tribunal should be included in the bill. I will give members an example, as I have 10 minutes for my speech. The Scottish Committee of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council has a definition of a tribunal:

“A body which resolves disputes between citizens and state and between private parties by making binding decisions according to law, does so by a process of adjudication which is specialised, relatively informal and less adversarial as compared to the model of adjudication applied by the courts and is independent of both the executive and the legislature and of the parties appearing before it.”

That is one proposed definition. I know that the minister’s response to the committee, which I have taken the trouble to read, referred to section 2(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Other members might wish to develop that point.

The bill’s challenge is to strike a balance between establishing a unified tribunal structure and retaining the unique features of tribunals of different kinds. It is also important to have the perception that that is being done. Some of our witnesses were concerned that the perception might be that all the tribunals were the same.

On practice directions—I am getting through my speech—we welcome the minister’s commitment to lodge an amendment to review the provision in section 68(5)(a) that enables the issuing of practice directions for the purpose of

“the application or interpretation of the law”.

We did not like that bit. If I remember correctly, the Lord President did not like it either, so I am in a good team in supporting that amendment.

Are members still with me? They are all awake, which is quite a big plus.

The committee supports the bill. We welcome its objectives of bringing about a greater degree of tribunal independence as well as ensuring the greater accessibility of tribunals to users. We identified issues that to some extent the minister has addressed. I am sure that other members of the committee are itching to pick up on some of the aspects of the bill that I have not had time to cover. I look forward to hearing other contributions in the debate and to the inventiveness of colleagues in trying to say something additional in the next two hours.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 07 November 2013

In the same item of business