Hansard

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the matter and I welcome the committee's interest in exploring it. I believe that the formation of the independent Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland to advise the First Minister and me on the appointment of Scotland's judges, sheriffs principal and sheriffs was one of the Executive's early successes. I had long held the view that the time was right to change the arrangements for appointing people to those key public judicial offices. I am pleased to say that there was ministerial agreement on the importance of early action on that and that the decision to create the board was made within two years of the Parliament's establishment.I saw an independent board as being able to deliver three main objectives: first, there would be a system that ensures the appointment to the bench of the best candidates; secondly, there would be a system that is truly independent of undue influence from the Executive; and thirdly, there would be a system that society at large sees as fair and independent.After setting the objectives, our next consideration was to choose the make-up of the membership to deliver on those objectives. My view was that there should be substantial involvement of people from outside the legal profession, and that the chairman of the board should be a lay person. As a result, the board has five lay members, including chairman Sir Neil McIntosh, who has a distinguished record of public service in a number of fields. Five members have legal backgrounds, including representation from the judiciary and both branches of the legal profession. An important consideration is that the legally qualified members of the board must be satisfied about the legal ability of any candidate.Before the board was established, voices were raised against the proposal that there should be a lay chairman and it was argued that legal representation should comprise the majority. Those concerns have proved to be totally unfounded; board members have worked well together and the diversity of their backgrounds has been a strength, rather than a weakness. Those are not my views; they are the chairman's. I am sure that he would readily corroborate that if members chose to take evidence from him directly. I always believed that the combination of legal and lay membership was the right approach if Parliament and the public were to be persuaded that the board properly represented the community. That is why we held fast against opposition to our suggestion about the composition of the board. I believe that the results have proved us to have been right.The board is wholly independent. My department provides secretarial support, but beyond that the board meets without any input from officials or ministers. The sole exception is when the board asks for an official to attend to provide advice on a particular piece of business. The committee can have confidence that the board makes decisions in its own way. All vacancies for posts are advertised publicly by the board, which then considers applications and draws up a shortlist for interview. Referee reports are called for and shortlisted candidates have the opportunity to make a presentation as part of the interview process.Although I stress the board's independence, ministers have issued guidance on matters such as openness and fairness of proceedings and—this is important—the board has been asked to widen the search for possible candidates. The aim is to ensure that the judiciary is as representative as possible of the community that it serves. I know that the board takes those responsibilities seriously, but it is perhaps a little early to look for positive results on them. However, the board is attending to those matters and I look forward to the results that it will produce in due course.The board has got off to a good start, beginning from scratch and with a clean sheet in a sensitive and important area of public life. The board's approach to the task has been commendable and its determination to produce a fair and open system of appointments has been apparent from the outset.As politicians, we can have confidence in the new institution and in the recommendations that it will deliver. The board was set up administratively in the first instance, but we have given a commitment to put it on a statutory basis. That will happen after there has been a bit more experience of operating administratively, so that there exists the ability, and there has been the time, to get the statutory provisions right. In the meantime, I am sure that the chairman and members of the board would agree that operating under a non-statutory framework has not hampered their work in any way.I was also invited to comment on the disclosure by the judiciary of membership of the freemasons or other societies. My views on that were conveyed in my private secretary's letter to the committee on 27 November; they have not changed much, if at all. As I see it, all judges and sheriffs take a solemn oath on taking office that they will do right towards all manner of people without fear or without favour. I believe that members of our judiciary take those responsibilities seriously, and would not be deflected from their course because someone who appeared before them was or was not a member of any particular club or society.I do not feel able to say much more on the subject today because, as the committee might be aware, a case is currently before the High Court relating to membership of the Speculative Society of Edinburgh. That case also touches on freemasonry. Their lordships have heard all the arguments and have retired to consider their decision. We should wait to see what the judges have to say before revisiting the subject. However, I would be happy to answer the committee's questions on anything that I have said.