Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 07 November 2013
07 Nov 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Tribunals (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The Scottish Parliament has, over the years, debated many bills that have attracted significant media and public attention. Bills have given the entitlement to permanent housing to the unintentionally homeless, banned smoking in public places and foxhunting and, more recently, addressed climate change and reformed Scotland’s police and fire and rescue services. However, I do not think that the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill is one of those that will get everyone talking. As members have already said, it is relatively uncontentious in its general principles, although there are concerns about aspects of the detail, which I will come on to.
Despite the lack of major areas of discord, I found the committee’s three evidence-gathering sessions surprisingly interesting, although I cannot promise that either of my speeches—unfortunately, there will be more than one today—will be interesting to the same extent. However, I certainly thank the witnesses for their contributions.
In many respects, the bill mirrors the provisions in the UK Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which applies to tribunals in England, and was introduced for the same reasons: tribunals have evolved through separate pieces of founding legislation; there is no coherent system of review and appeal; and there is a variety of processes for appointments and opportunities for training. The bill therefore aims to bring coherence to the devolved tribunals in Scotland, and to provide opportunities to benefit from shared good practice and expertise.
However, because the UK Government is not minded to transfer into the Scottish tribunals system reserved tribunals such as employment tribunals, immigration tribunals or the social entitlement chamber, the bill will apply to only a small percentage of tribunals in Scotland, as Christine Grahame said. One of the witnesses said that it was 2 per cent and another said that it was 3 per cent, so I think that is somewhere between 2 and 3 per cent. The vast majority of tribunals will remain within the reserved tribunals system.
Jonathan Mitchell of the Faculty of Advocates advised us that the proposed system will apply to around 4,000 cases annually in Scotland, while 60,000 will go through the social entitlement chamber, 20,000 will go to employment tribunals in Scotland, and 10,000 will go to immigration and asylum tribunals. At the moment, therefore, we are dealing with a small number of cases.
One of the issues that was brought to the committee’s attention was the fact that, as the bill will apply not only to existing devolved tribunals but—if and when they transfer—to reserved tribunals and to any new tribunals that we might decide to set up in future, it should, as has been said already, contain some form of definition of the character of a tribunal. Lauren Wood of Citizens Advice Scotland suggested that the bill could incorporate
“principles to help to guide tribunals, as there are in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 September 2013; c 3125.]
That might be a starting point for us to consider at stage 2 how the bill might be amended.
Jon Shaw of the Child Poverty Action Group felt that, despite similar provisions being contained in the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Act 2013,
“Placing a principle in the bill ... would be a real improvement.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 September 2013; c 3216.]
Richard Henderson of the Law Society for Scotland advised that, when making reforms in different areas, such as civil courts and tribunals, we will have to ask ourselves about the linkage between them, and asking that question then prompts the question, “What is a tribunal?”
The argument for having principles that define the nature of a tribunal in the bill does not contradict the fact that the existing devolved tribunals have distinctive characteristics that the new system must preserve.
Despite the lack of major areas of discord, I found the committee’s three evidence-gathering sessions surprisingly interesting, although I cannot promise that either of my speeches—unfortunately, there will be more than one today—will be interesting to the same extent. However, I certainly thank the witnesses for their contributions.
In many respects, the bill mirrors the provisions in the UK Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which applies to tribunals in England, and was introduced for the same reasons: tribunals have evolved through separate pieces of founding legislation; there is no coherent system of review and appeal; and there is a variety of processes for appointments and opportunities for training. The bill therefore aims to bring coherence to the devolved tribunals in Scotland, and to provide opportunities to benefit from shared good practice and expertise.
However, because the UK Government is not minded to transfer into the Scottish tribunals system reserved tribunals such as employment tribunals, immigration tribunals or the social entitlement chamber, the bill will apply to only a small percentage of tribunals in Scotland, as Christine Grahame said. One of the witnesses said that it was 2 per cent and another said that it was 3 per cent, so I think that is somewhere between 2 and 3 per cent. The vast majority of tribunals will remain within the reserved tribunals system.
Jonathan Mitchell of the Faculty of Advocates advised us that the proposed system will apply to around 4,000 cases annually in Scotland, while 60,000 will go through the social entitlement chamber, 20,000 will go to employment tribunals in Scotland, and 10,000 will go to immigration and asylum tribunals. At the moment, therefore, we are dealing with a small number of cases.
One of the issues that was brought to the committee’s attention was the fact that, as the bill will apply not only to existing devolved tribunals but—if and when they transfer—to reserved tribunals and to any new tribunals that we might decide to set up in future, it should, as has been said already, contain some form of definition of the character of a tribunal. Lauren Wood of Citizens Advice Scotland suggested that the bill could incorporate
“principles to help to guide tribunals, as there are in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 September 2013; c 3125.]
That might be a starting point for us to consider at stage 2 how the bill might be amended.
Jon Shaw of the Child Poverty Action Group felt that, despite similar provisions being contained in the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Act 2013,
“Placing a principle in the bill ... would be a real improvement.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 September 2013; c 3216.]
Richard Henderson of the Law Society for Scotland advised that, when making reforms in different areas, such as civil courts and tribunals, we will have to ask ourselves about the linkage between them, and asking that question then prompts the question, “What is a tribunal?”
The argument for having principles that define the nature of a tribunal in the bill does not contradict the fact that the existing devolved tribunals have distinctive characteristics that the new system must preserve.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08145, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill.
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham)
SNP
I am delighted to open this stage 1 debate on the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Justice Committee for its scrutiny of the bill at stage 1 and for th...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
The minister says that there will be an assignment, rather than an appointment. There is public expectation that the post and person specifications will be c...
Roseanna Cunningham
SNP
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 ...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
I shall say this very slowly: I am amending parts of my speech.
Roseanna Cunningham
SNP
I thought that that might be the case.Members need to keep it in mind that each tribunal was created by an act of Parliament. They are all required to operat...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Thank you, minister. If “courtification” is not a word, it should be. I call Christine Grahame to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee—you have 10 minute...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
Heavens.It says in my notes, “Welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate”. I think that that might be going a bit too far. I speak on behalf of the Justi...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I am sure that Mr Stevenson will tell me about an even greater tumbleweed debate.
Stewart Stevenson
SNP
I wonder whether the member remembers the Court of Session Act 1693—Laughter.. It specifically says that“no person presume to speake after the Lords begin to...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I liked the last bit, but the idea that I was around in 1693 is a bit wounding.By way of introduction, I will take members on a brief journey through the mix...
Roseanna Cunningham
SNP
It is assignment.
Christine Grahame
SNP
Thank you.The president will be responsible for the efficient disposal of tribunal business. Currently, only a senator of the College of Justice can be assig...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Courtification.
Christine Grahame
SNP
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 d...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Thank you, Ms Grahame. It might be helpful to members if I advise that we have a little time in hand. If members take interventions, the Presiding Officers w...
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Lab
The Scottish Parliament has, over the years, debated many bills that have attracted significant media and public attention. Bills have given the entitlement ...
Stewart Stevenson
SNP
I wonder whether it would be helpful to look at the way that the Scottish Parliament information centre has described what a tribunal is. It seems to me that...
Elaine Murray
Lab
I thank the member for his intervention. That was along the lines of some of the suggestions that were made to the committee, and I think that we will be kee...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
As tribunals form an important part of our civil justice system, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this stage 1 debate on the general principles of the T...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
I would be delighted.
Margaret Mitchell
Con
According to that committee, a tribunal is“A body which resolves disputes between citizens and state and between private parties by making binding decisions ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
We move to the open debate. There is a modest amount of time in hand for interventions.15:14
Colin Keir (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
SNP
I am not terribly sure that I am delighted to be speaking here today, but it is my last hurrah as a member of the Justice Committee. There is an element of d...
Christine Grahame
SNP
Mention them again.
Colin Keir
SNP
No—I refuse to mention them again. Ms Grahame should just sit there. She has had her shot.Anyway, use of affirmative procedure will provide some parliamentar...
John Pentland (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Lab
Sometimes it takes weeks to hear repetition in the chamber, but when it does we tend to think, “Oh, no! Not that again.” However, we are less than an hour in...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I declare my interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates.As members are aware, the UK Government ha...
Stewart Stevenson
SNP
Will Roderick Campbell give way?
Roderick Campbell
SNP
I am not sure that I have time, to be honest, but I will give way if the intervention is brief.