Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2342, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill.
We come to the final stage in a reform process that began back in 2006. The work was originated not by this Government, but by my predecessor Cathy Jamieson and her colleagues in the previous Liberal-Labour Administration. I pay tribute to her for her work in commencing the process. We have managed to keep the bill as non-partisan as possible, and I pay tribute to members who have participated in ensuring that we deliver good governance not simply for our courts, but for our country.
As we have seen throughout consideration of the bill, the topic is serious, even if it does not ignite the nation's passions. The bill is an important constitutional measure that provides a rare opportunity to refresh the relationship between the judicial, legislative and executive arms of government, which is fundamental to democracy.
It is right that the bill had the benefit of two formal consultations and the Justice Committee's detailed and careful attention, as the committee's convener reminded me today. I thank the committee's members and staff for all their work. The bill's progress offers an excellent example of how the Government and a committee can work together to achieve a first-rate outcome. The bill also benefited from the collaboration of members of all parties, who were prepared to discuss matters and put their points of view. In some instances, members persuaded the Government; in others, they accepted the points that the Government made. I pay tribute to my team and secretariat, who worked seamlessly under different Governments to deliver the bill.
I also thank the Lord President and his judicial colleagues for the constructive and helpful way in which they approached the bill. In particular, I thank the members of the judiciary and others who worked with my officials in the lead-up to the bill's introduction, to ensure that we brought forward a comprehensive and measured package of reforms. I also thank all the individuals and organisations who commented on the proposals and on the bill at its various stages. We welcome their participation and have benefited from their insight.
The Government is clear about the need for a strong, independent judiciary. The bill enshrines that independence in statute. It will give the Lord President additional responsibilities for the courts in Scotland and for the judiciary, together with a complementary leadership role in the strategic management of the administrative service on which he and his colleagues will rely. It will place the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland on a statutory footing, which is important, and it will introduce a framework for a structured judicial complaints system.
During stage 2 and in discussions during the past weeks, I listened carefully to members of other parties who were concerned that the bill as introduced removed ministers' role in making decisions about opening or closing court buildings. For instance, Bill Aitken was concerned to ensure that there would be effective local consultation on changes to the location of courts, and Margaret Smith felt strongly that the location of courts was a matter in which communities and their elected representatives had a strong democratic interest. That concern was shared by Labour Party colleagues, as Richard Baker and other members said during the debate on the stage 3 amendments.
I listened to those views and was persuaded by the arguments that were put forward. The bill was therefore amended today to provide that statutory instruments on sheriffdom boundaries and court locations should be promoted by ministers and should be capable of annulment by the Parliament. Ministers and the Parliament will therefore have an effective say over whether proposals that have a potentially significant impact on communities, such as court closures, should go ahead. I am grateful to colleagues in all parties for the constructive way in which they approached the discussions on the issue.
It is important to reiterate that although there are issues on which we might disagree, some of which were considered today, our ability to focus in has served the Parliament, our communities and indeed the Scottish Court Service, which will be improved. With the changes that we made today, I firmly believe that the bill does the right thing in giving a judicially chaired body the front-line responsibility for running the courts, while safeguarding the legitimate interests of ministers and the Parliament.
We had quite robust debate about the role of the Lord President and the accountability of the SCS. I welcomed the independent study that showed that the Lord President's increased workload would be manageable without his having to sacrifice his vital role on the bench. It was appropriate that the committee flagged up the issue and I am grateful to it for that. In addition to the robust accountability of the SCS to Parliament through its chief executive as accountable officer, I welcomed the Lord President's assurance that he will accept the Parliament's invitation to him to attend, if the Parliament has serious concerns about the operation of the SCS.
Mr Martin has pursued that matter with vigour and principle and I hope that we can satisfy him through the memorandum or concordat—historic or otherwise—that we will have in the democratic system into which we are entering. I understand that he has received assurances on the matter directly from the Lord President, which I welcome. The Lord President agreed that the matter should be set out for him and his successors in a framework document, which will define the relations between the SCS, ministers and the Parliament. That is the correct basis on which future relationships should rest. It is clear that the document will have to be discussed and knocked about. The Justice Committee will have the opportunity to ensure that we get it right. I am sure that we can achieve that, as we got the bill right through discussions between ministers, the judiciary and the committee.
The bill provides a strong, coherent structure for a modern judiciary and the effective management of our court system. It offers a package of reforms that will strengthen Scotland's judiciary as an institution—I know that the judiciary welcomes the bill—and introduce a number of practical reforms to improve the way in which the system operates.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I welcome the fact that today's debate has been consensual, and I acknowledge the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's constructive approach to the legislation—although I look forward to a more robust exchange of ideas on future matters.
The bill was born of a process that began under the previous Executive, which introduced the white paper in February last year. In the introduction to the white paper, Cathy Jamieson stated:
"it is important that legislative provisions and other arrangements are in place for the judiciary which reflect the modern day circumstances and considerations they face."
She also proposed that "a future Administration" could take forward the work on the bill. The current Administration is, of course, not the one that she had in mind, but it has nevertheless taken that work forward, and it is therefore right that we reach agreement on the legislation that is before us.
It is sensible to create a unified judiciary with the Lord President at its head, and to place in statute the independence of that judiciary, as it is a fundamental pillar of our democracy. That makes it all the more important to have the right processes in place for judicial appointments, and the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland will put in place a clearer process. That is a move forward from the opaque nature of the previous arrangements—although Bill Aitken seemed to be rather nostalgic for those at certain points in the debate.
The fact that the Judicial Appointments Board will have both lay and judicial membership reflects the will to ensure public confidence in the process. I noted with interest that the board's role of encouraging diversity in the judiciary sparked some debate at committee. Establishing a judiciary that is as representative as possible of our society cannot be achieved by the board alone. Merit must be pre-eminent in appointments, but diversity is an important issue for the board to bear in mind.
Responsibility for judicial training now passes to the Lord President, and although the Justice Committee agreed that the Lord President should make arrangements for training, it also stressed that confidence in the judiciary would be enhanced if there was a mandatory element to training. I hope that the Lord President will take that forward.
With the establishment of the Judicial Council and the oversight of the Lord President in matters of judicial conduct, the logic and benefit of a unified judiciary are made clear. The provisions in the bill on those matters are clearly steps forward from the current situation. The fact that the bill has provided for the incapacity of the Lord President by repealing the Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Act 2006 and re-enacting it with minor modifications gives us and the public confidence that the right structures and systems are in place for the effective organisation of the judiciary.
The previous Executive welcomed the greater involvement of the judiciary in the running of the Scottish Court Service, and the white paper put forward the proposal for a non-executive board, to be chaired by the Lord President. There was force behind that argument: if the Lord President was to have overall responsibility for the efficient disposal of business, that would need to be aligned with giving the Lord President authority over administrative support for the courts.
The logic behind that is clear, but it is right and proper that it should be tested through the legislative process. My colleagues have sought to do that: testing the proposal was the motivation behind the amendments from Paul Martin and Cathie Craigie. It is important that members have stressed in the chamber today that MSPs must be able to engage in legitimate scrutiny of the operation of court processes, which can be so important to wider approaches to court reforms. Although Paul Martin did not press amendment 18, it was important that we placed on record the importance of the Lord President being able to give evidence on the operation of the Scottish Court Service to a committee. We hope that not only the current Lord President, but his successors will be prepared to engage with committees in that area.
Cathie Craigie mentioned the importance of ministers being able to effect legitimate policy aspirations for developments in court services after the changes come in. The cabinet secretary has referred constructively to the framework, which we expect to ensure effective joint working between the board and ministers on policy goals, as Parliament would wish.
The changes will, of course, take time to come into effect. A future committee might wish to engage in post-legislative scrutiny of the area, so that once the transfer of responsibilities has taken place and has had time to bed in, we can be satisfied that the questions that members have raised today have been addressed.
There has been debate over the membership of the SCS board. Pauline McNeill raised the concerns of part-time sheriffs. Although that did not result in a change to the board's membership, it is important that members of the board, and the service as a whole, take those views into consideration in future.
A broad consensus has developed on the bill. The developments in the independence, appointment and organisation of the judiciary can only benefit public confidence in those matters, which are of fundamental importance to the Scottish legal system. That is why we are happy to support the bill.
As has been said, the bill had its genesis under the previous Administration, with the work continued by the present Government. It has been a rare co-operative venture. Let us hope that that augurs well for when more controversial matters come before the Parliament.
The bill underlines the principle of judicial independence, which, as I have said, every one of us in the Parliament accepts and respects. It is important to pass the legislation to underline that principle. I look forward to the cabinet secretary showing a similar degree of respect for judicial independence by not interfering with sentences or doing anything to detract from judicial decisions. We shall see about that in due course.
I had some personal unhappiness with certain aspects of the bill but, in the spirit of consensus, I ignored that. One issue was the rather convoluted complaints procedure, which is a bit akin to taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Nevertheless, we will live with it. I compliment the cabinet secretary—sincerely, on this occasion—for acknowledging members' real concerns about the potential workload for the judiciary. It was useful that the cabinet secretary arranged for Douglas Osler to prepare a supplementary report for the Justice Committee, as that provided us with some reassurance. I underline the fact that the proposals were judicially led. On two separate occasions, I asked the Lord President whether there would be any detraction from his judicial duties, in answer to which he said no. Therefore, we can be content on that matter. The bill will underline and strengthen the tripartite system, essential in any democracy, of the Government, the Parliament and the judiciary all operating from separate legs to strengthen the body politic in its widest extent.
Other interesting issues came to light during the committee's consideration of the bill. The operation of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland is extremely interesting and provided a topic of conversation for the committee when we formulated our report in private. We are basically satisfied that the board operates reasonably, but I do not preclude the possibility of the committee returning to the issue to carry out a brief inquiry into the operation of the board when time is available, so that we can satisfy ourselves that everything is as it should be.
I have probably spoken enough this afternoon. The debate is reasonably consensual, so there is no need to overload the Parliament. I will simply say that the Conservatives will support the bill at decision time.
As we have heard, the bill is important. Work on it was started in the previous parliamentary session by the Scottish Executive, and the Liberal Democrats are pleased that it is reaching its conclusion. In the previous two sessions, the Scottish Parliament passed a range of bills on the justice system in Scotland. The bill follows on from those important changes and deals with new issues that needed to be addressed.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the independence of the judiciary is the foundation on which our legal system is built. The bill will set out in statute for the first time in Scotland a guarantee of judicial independence, which is important symbolically and sends out the right message. The bill will unify the judiciary under the Lord President and, according to him, it presents an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to make a law of considerable constitutional significance that will place the relationship of the judiciary with the Scottish Government and the Parliament on a completely new footing. The bill will strengthen the independence of the judiciary by placing an obligation on the First Minister, the Lord Advocate, the Scottish ministers and all those with responsibility for matters relating to the judiciary to uphold its continued independence. I reiterate that that is particularly welcomed by the Liberal Democrats.
The bill also establishes a Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland by putting the existing board on a statutory footing. We welcome that, as it will enable processes and procedures to be developed and built on. The board was established in June 2002 on a non-statutory basis. Its creation was intended by the then Scottish Executive to ensure that the way in which judges are appointed is seen to be entirely free from inappropriate influence. The board appoints individuals to all Scottish courts. The Scottish Government can make a judicial appointment only if the board has recommended the individual for appointment.
When the committee agreed to the general principles of the bill, members addressed a number of points, one of which was the question of making judicial training mandatory. I am sure that, in the past, all judges and sheriffs more than adequately kept up with changes in legislation. However, the fact that they were not required to undergo any judicial training has been addressed in the bill. The Government believes that the Lord President should be responsible for judicial training, but I am pleased that it accepted Margaret Smith's stage 2 amendment whereby
"the Lord President must require any judicial office holder … to attend such training as the Lord President determines."
We believe that more should and must be done to help victims of crime. That work will be enhanced by providing judges with adequate training on the needs of vulnerable people, particularly with reference to the limits of acceptable examination and judicial intervention.
Training seemed to be a difficult issue, and it also seems strange that it has been so difficult to remove somebody who sits in the High Court, the sheriff court or even the district court. Chapter 5 of the bill deals with the subject of removal from office: sections 33 to 37 deals with judges; section 38 deals with sheriffs; and section 38A deals with justices of the peace. The bill provides for the establishment of a tribunal to consider the fitness of all judicial office-holders, and proposes that the Lord President be given unqualified power to suspend and that the First Minister be given the power to suspend on the recommendation of the tribunal. Again, I believe that that will enhance the public's confidence in the judicial system.
My colleague Margaret Smith lodged an amendment at stage 2, which was not agreed to, which proposed that responsibility for decisions about boundaries and the location of sheriff courts remain with the Scottish ministers rather than being transferred to the Lord President. I am pleased that the stage 3 amendments that the cabinet secretary lodged in that regard were agreed earlier this afternoon.
I congratulate the Justice Committee on getting the bill to this stage. I would have been interested to serve on the committee during the passage of the bill, as I am sure that its debates were interesting. If passed at decision time, the bill will make important changes to the justice system that should make it more accountable and more open. I am sure that those in the justice system will welcome the bill as a positive and important way forward. The Liberal Democrats will be happy to support the bill at decision time.
I speak as a member of the Justice Committee who sat through the committee's consideration of the bill, on which, in the main, it agreed. That is not to say that there were no areas of debate or contention; simply that, in the main, we welcomed it. I would have been surprised if the committee had not welcomed the bill, given the work that the former Scottish Executive undertook and which the new Scottish National Party Government continued.
The bill seeks to provide for the good governance of the Scottish Court Service by enabling it to deal with matters itself rather than by Government diktat. I fully agree with that approach, given that it appears to be similar to the one the Scottish Government took in discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on its historic concordat.
The bill enables the Parliament to continue to question and have a say on the SCS. Section 64 requires the SCS to provide information to the Scottish ministers, section 62 allows ministers to determine priorities for the service when dealing with the corporate plan and section 65 provides for ministers to issue guidance to the SCS.
As we have heard, the Lord President has said that if he is invited to come to the committee he will attend, although he does not expect that to be routine as that is the role of the SCS chief executive. There is adequate provision to make the SCS accountable to the Parliament.
Throughout the passage of the bill, members have debated the role of the Lord President and the accountability of the SCS. Those concerns have been raised again today. They are legitimate, but I am confident that the bill contains sufficient safeguards to ensure accountability.
Unlike the proposed abolition of the council tax bill or referendum bill, the bill that we are debating today is unlikely to receive many column inches in the media. I doubt that many people who do not work in the legal industry will be too bothered about our proceedings today, but the bill will provide a new and clear direction for the judiciary and courts in Scotland and various aspects of it will certainly benefit both the judiciary and Parliament.
Section 9(3), which guarantees that the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland will not
"be subject to the direction or control of"
Government, is welcome. Section 28, which introduces a judicial complaints reviewer, will provide a greater sense of transparency to the public when they are attempting to establish the accuracy of a complaint's handling. Chapter 5, which provides for the removal from office of judges, sheriffs and justices of the peace, is a welcome addition. The public perception of the legal establishment is that it is an untouchable group in society. I cannot comment on whether that perception is correct or incorrect, but I am sure that in time chapter 5 will provide a clearer picture, ensure transparency and make it clear to the wider public that the legal establishment is working for the benefit of everyone in Scotland.
I am sure that the bill will provide some clarity for the public and enshrine in statute the benefits of independence, albeit only for the judiciary and courts in Scotland.
I am sure that the chamber will be relieved to know that I do not intend to take up too much time this afternoon, as I have had my say on the bill. It is important that members should have their say. It has been a pleasure for me to be involved in scrutinising the bill, as a member of the Justice Committee. The committee and the cabinet secretary ensured that every provision of the bill was examined carefully; it could be said that we lifted the carpet and swept underneath it.
The Justice Committee and I will have our say again when the legislation is implemented. No doubt we will have more to say about the framework document that will come before the committee. It will be obvious to anyone who has followed the debate that I support the principle of an independent judiciary with greater transparency, which will be enshrined in legislation if the Parliament so decides this evening. My concerns, which have been well documented, relate to accountability. The position of the cabinet secretary and the Government has become clearer as the bill has progressed.
The Justice Committee's work is not done. The next stage in the process will be the publication of the framework document. I look forward to working with other committee members and the cabinet secretary to ensure that that document provides the accountability and the agreements between the SCS and the Parliament that we seek.
Like the cabinet secretary, I pay tribute to Cathy Jamieson for the work that was carried out in 2006 and the early part of 2007. She has been a champion for change in the justice system. I hope that the bill will not remove the ability of future cabinet secretaries and justice ministers to champion the changes that both we and the public require. I accept that not everyone has been waiting for the bill and that people will not be sitting at home clapping their hands tonight, but it is an important piece of legislation.
There were robust exchanges during the committee's consideration of the bill. The purpose of the Parliament's committee system is to hold the Government to account, and the Justice Committee was able to do that when it scrutinised the bill. I hope that the cabinet secretary did not take personally some of the exchanges that took place; I look forward to further robust exchanges with him as we move forward. I hope that this evening the Parliament will agree to pass the bill.
I cannot help reflecting that, in generations ahead, people will wonder how on earth it took us so long to get here. The notion of the separation of powers seems to have been in our literature for centuries, yet only today—assuming the bill is passed—will we reach the point at which the separate institution of our courts, and the power of the Lord President to control them, is enshrined in statute; and only now are we clearly establishing that the people who are appointed are appointed by an independent Judicial Appointments Board that is outwith the control of the Government. We will finally have enshrined in statute the fact that it is not only ministers' and the First Minister's job to uphold the independence of the judiciary, but the job of MSPs.
It has taken us an awful long time to get here, but we have probably reached the right place. I reflect that we have reached the right place in peaceful times. That is the right time to legislate on such matters. We have a pretty robust system set down now, which will stand us well if, in what are unthinkable times to many of us, we arrive at constitutional crises. We have, in times of peace, laid down the way in which things should be done.
Like other members, I look forward to the publication of the memorandum of understanding—or whatever it will be called—between the Lord President and the cabinet secretary. It will be an important document, and we will have to consider it carefully.
It is a very good thing that the training of the judiciary is now clearly in the Lord President's hands. I am glad that he also has the power to enforce that, as I think Mike Pringle said.
I pay tribute to the workings of the Justice Committee. I confess that before I came into Parliament I thought that the committees were battlegrounds. It is a joy to reflect, after almost 15 months of this session, that the Justice Committee has not worked like that. We have shown that we can address issues, including those on which we do not agree, in a constructive fashion. The substantial work that went into scrutinising the bill has demonstrated that.
I pay tribute—I do not think that anybody else has—to the work of Margaret Smith and John Wilson, who are no longer on the Justice Committee but who contributed to the scrutiny process. I thank them for that contribution. I notice that they have not said very much this afternoon, although I was not expecting them to.
I welcome Richard Baker to his place on the front bench. I am certain that he will do a thorough and efficient job in holding the Government to account on matters of justice. As deputy convener of the Justice Committee, I place on record my thanks to the clerking team and to Scottish Parliament information centre staff for their sterling efforts in support of our scrutiny of the bill. Like Nigel Don, I acknowledge the efforts of Margaret Smith and John Wilson.
I welcome the first piece of justice legislation by the SNP Government in this, the second year of its tenure. The bill follows a programme of reviews and consultations initiated by the previous Labour-led Executive. The bill's policy thrust is progressive, and its provisions are worthy of support across the Parliament.
The Justice Committee raised a concern at stage 1 in respect of the new governance arrangements for the SCS and the additional administrative and organisational burden that will be placed on the judiciary. I was pleased that the cabinet secretary instructed an independent review, under Douglas Osler, to determine
"whether the formalisation of existing responsibilities and the addition of new duties will change the nature of the Lord President's office in particular from one that is predominantly judicial to one that is heavily administrative."
Like other members, I took comfort from Douglas Osler's conclusion that
"the proposed structures represent a more effective way of using the time available within the judiciary and the SCS in support of the management and administration of justice".
He describes such a commitment as "manageable". I believe that it is.
The stage 2 amendment moved by my committee colleague Nigel Don to add
"members of the Scottish Parliament"
to those people with a specific obligation to
"uphold the continued independence of the judiciary"
was rational and welcome, as are most of the comments he has made.
Margaret Smith, who has now moved on from the Justice Committee to other responsibilities, pushed an amendment at stage 2 relating to continuing
"training for judicial office holders",
which effectively ensured that the Lord President must require any judicial office-holder
"to attend such training as the Lord President determines"
to be necessary. Like other colleagues, I felt that that presented a welcome strengthening of the bill in respect of the need to ensure that training is viewed as being of central importance.
There has been discussion about the removal of the Scottish Court Service from the direct authority of the Scottish ministers. I am, on the whole, satisfied—and have been for some time—with the assurances the cabinet secretary gave Cathie Craigie and the assurances that were given during consideration of the bill. Indeed, paragraph 131 of the policy memorandum sets out that there is a provision—I believe that it is called a default clause—that if the SCS is not operating within a set of priorities set out in a corporate plan agreed with the Scottish ministers,
"in the event of a serious failure by the SCS to carry out its functions the Scottish Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument provide for those functions to be carried out instead by them."
I believe that that provides a sufficient safeguard and avoids the
"potentially unsatisfactory situation of ministers giving direction to the SCS, which it may not have the capacity to carry out."
The provision is plain, clear and gives me comfort.
The bill is good and, among other things, puts the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, which was set up by Labour, on a statutory footing, thus ensuring greater transparency. It also provides a statutory commitment to ensure judicial independence and modernises the organisation and leadership of the judiciary. The bill is rational, timely and worthy of support. I commend it to the chamber.
I am glad to make the closing speech on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this debate on the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill. This is my first stage 3 since I joined the Justice Committee. I pay tribute to the committee for the work it has done and to my predecessor, Margaret Smith, who, as has been said, was involved in the detailed work at stages 1 and 2. I also pay tribute to the cabinet secretary, who displayed a helpful approach by responding to legitimate points as the debate progressed.
The bill deals with vital and central concepts. We do not have a formal written constitution in the United Kingdom, although we have a number of important pieces of constitutional legislation, including the Scotland Act 1998. Neither do we have a formal separation of powers such as is in the United Stated constitution and the constitutions of many other countries. Nevertheless, the judiciary's independence from the Executive and the legislature is in our bones and our culture; it is supported as an article of faith by the public and worried over, as we have seen during the debates on the bill, by politicians.
Despite what Nigel Don said, the independence of the judiciary has been delivered by struggle and civil strife over many years, is enshrined in the Claim of Right Act 1689 and has been at the heart of all our arrangements for our courts over the years since then. Members may be interested to know that, among other things, the claim of right protested against many abuses by King James VII. In particular, the Scots Parliament of the day alleged that he had acted
"contrairy to the knoune lawes statutes and freedomes of this realme … by chainging the nature of the Judge's gifts"—
that is, his appointment—
"ad vitam aut culpam and giveing them Commissions ad beneplacitum to dispose them to complyance with arbitrary Courses and turneing them out of their offices when they did not comply".
I guess that Mr MacAskill and Mr Ewing will be fairly familiar with those phraseologies, but what the passage means is that judges should be independent and appointed for life, not at the pleasure of the Government of the day. That has been a guiding principle of our law.
I can remember when appointment to the judicial bench was reserved to the Lord Advocate. Replacing that approach with a much more open and formal structure, which has culminated in the bill, is an improvement.
In establishing a modern structure of support and accountability for the Scottish Court Service, sensitivity to judicial independence has been a central consideration. Put generally, the dilemma is how to put in place a modern and efficient legal system and get value from it for the public purse and the public who use it so that unnecessary process, delay and cost is taken out while at the same time the independence of our judges is enhanced.
The statutory declaration in the bill, combined with the administrative arrangements whereby the chief executive of the SCS will normally be the accountable person, gets it right. In addition, it is helpful that the Lord President has undertaken to engage on policy and other issues about training, specialist courts and so forth, but it is right that the Lord President cannot be compelled to account to Parliament on those issues.
The acceptance of Margaret Smith's proposal that boundaries and the location of sheriff courts should be more clearly left as a political decision is also a substantial improvement.
The bill reforms the arrangements for appointing judges, to ensure that it happens in an open and transparent way, and for dealing with complaints about the conduct—as opposed to the decisions—of judges. It also deals with the arrangements for, in what would be an unusual extremity, getting rid of a judge if that is required. It is right that the removal process should be difficult and involve both the judiciary—which would normally instigate the process—and the Government. The bill will provide a modern structure and framework for the Scottish courts that is suitable for the modern age but retains and enhances the customary high standing and reputation of the courts and the judges who serve in them.
It will now be up to the Lord President and the Scottish Court Service to use the framework and powers under the bill in a way that is administratively streamlined and efficient and does not turn judges into administrators or overburden them with red tape. As we have heard, the possible administrative burden on the Lord President was an ever central concern of the Justice Committee. I urge members to pass the bill as amended, for which I promise the support of the Liberal Democrats.
As members have heard already this evening, the Scottish Conservatives have no difficulty supporting the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill. We believe that it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary in Scotland remains independent. As I said during the stage 2 debate, we support the principle that a free and democratic society can flourish only if the members of that society have access to an independent judicial system. Therefore, we welcome what the bill achieves in so far as it further promotes judicial independence.
During the stage 1 debate, we expressed concerns about the establishment of the judicial complaints reviewer. Our primary concern was that the system for handling complaints would be unnecessarily elaborate and bureaucratic. Furthermore, although we agree that the public should be able to complain, understand the complaints process easily and feel comfortable using it, we shared the Justice Committee's concerns, which Bill Aitken repeated earlier in the debate. We remain concerned about those provisions and are interested to see how they will work in practice. The complaints system may need to be fine-tuned in future. I hope that the Scottish Government and ministers will be mindful of that.
We also had reservations about the amount of time the Lord President might need to dedicate to administrative work. That issue was picked up by the Justice Committee as well as by Cathie Craigie and others during the consideration of stage 3 amendments. In particular, parts 2 and 3 appear to place significant extra responsibilities on the Lord President. However, like the cabinet secretary, we are reassured by the conclusions of the Osler review, which notes that the increase in administrative duties will be accompanied by additional resources to ensure that the administrative burden is reduced.
We welcome the concessions that the Government has made today in responding to Bill Aitken, who spoke to and moved several amendments. We are sorry that some of our amendments were not agreed to but, although the bill and the various amendments to it might not be widely reported in the media tomorrow, we note that the SNP Government today suffered its first ever defeat on a piece of legislation in the Parliament.
I am happy to confirm that we will support the bill.
Scrutiny of the bill has provided us with an opportunity to improve the way we deliver justice in Scotland. As the minister correctly pointed out, the bill has been developed over several years, especially since 2006, when Cathy Jamieson was a minister.
We have heard many good speeches today, but I do not expect today's debate, which has had an historically unprecedented degree of consensus, to be widely reported. I do not expect Sky News or the BBC to report how consensual we have been today, but neither do I expect the man or woman in the street to get excited about the bill. However, it is important to recognise that the Parliament plays an important role in engaging with the judicial authorities and responding to their concerns in the context that Robert Brown mentioned. We need such legislation to deliver a fair justice system in our communities throughout Scotland.
The transfer of Scottish Court Service functions to the Lord President has been a continuing issue. Throughout the process we have been advised by the judiciary that widening the role of the judiciary to include the management of our courts will improve the delivery of justice. We will hold the Lord President to that commitment. We on the Labour benches support the proposed transfer, but we will carefully monitor how effective that transfer is. We expect the Lord President to recognise that, as democratically elected representatives, we will want to interact with him in ensuring that we are able to scrutinise the management of our courts service. I have not yet received the correspondence that the Lord President has apparently sent me. I look forward to receiving it, and anticipate that it will be helpful and will show how far we have moved forward in the debate.
Unlike Bill Aitken and John Lamont, we supported the provision on a complaints reviewer. Chapter 4 refers to judicial conduct, and I refer in particular to the proposal for a complaints reviewer. The world we live in is, helpfully, now more open and accountable, so more than ever it is good that we should ensure that the independence of the judiciary continues. We also have a responsibility to ensure that procedures are being followed properly, and we believe that the complaints reviewer will provide that opportunity. In the modern world, that should be welcomed.
Like others, including Richard Baker and Nigel Don, we strongly support the case for mandatory training. There is compelling evidence, particularly in relation to cases in which children give evidence—that we require certain levels of sensitivity and experience. Like others, I have the greatest respect for those who serve on our judicial benches; many have many years' experience and we should commend them for their hard work over the years but, like others—including us—they are not infallible, and they, too, can benefit from training and, in turn, provide a better service to the public. If the Lord President is determined to ensure that that is the outcome of this legislation, that will be a step forward. We will monitor the delivery of mandatory training carefully.
It should be noted that, once again, we have placed greater responsibility on the judiciary. Their destiny is now in their hands and they must ensure that better justice is delivered. Today, our exchanges have been constructive and consensual to an unprecedented level. It is now for the judiciary to take on board all the issues that have been raised and to deliver fair and natural justice in our courts.
I agree with Paul Martin—we have to make progress now. I, too, pay tribute to the Scottish judiciary. Paul Martin is right to say that the judiciary has to rise to the challenge: I am certain that it will. As Bill Aitken suggested earlier, we have been well served throughout the centuries. The whole purpose of the bill is to assist our judiciary to serve our communities better. We would not in any way seek to constrain, hector or lecture our judges.
Many members, including Paul Martin, Stuart McMillan and Cathie Craigie, pointed out that the media spotlight has not fallen on this bill. Indeed, the press gallery is empty, and it has been almost constantly empty since the start of the debate.
I was intrigued by a point that Nigel Don made: it is indeed surprising that it has taken us so long to get here. Cathy Jamieson was instrumental in raising the issues during the previous Administration—as, to be fair, were the Liberal Democrats. We are delighted to continue with that. I am one of those sad people who, either out of choice or because of course requirements, have read Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These arguments have intrigued people through the centuries.
We will be ensuring that the courts run better—Paul Martin was right to emphasise that point—but we will also be enshrining and preserving democracy. It is not simply rhetorical to say that the separation of powers is vital. That fundamental point has been made through the centuries. The bill is an important constitutional measure, not simply some adornment for Parliament to provide. Its aim is to assist, not to lecture, our sheriffs, who have served us well, as have all the judiciary, and it will take us further.
Legitimate concerns have been raised in the debate. Bill Aitken was correct to say that we must monitor the situation, as were other members of the Justice Committee, who raised worries about the judiciary's workload. That must be continually monitored.
Cathie Craigie was right to say that, although we have the legislation, the memorandum and framework are still to come. I hope that those will be discussed not just between me and the Justice Committee but with other members who are not on the committee, in particular Richard Baker. We must also include the Scottish Court Service and the Lord President in those discussions.
Like other members, I pay tribute to Cathy Jamieson for the important role that she has played in matters such as the provision of training for sheriffs. We are well served by our judiciary, but every job must recognise that we live in a fast-changing world and that, no matter how able or talented someone is as a solicitor or advocate, or how skilful they are on the bench, society changes and we must be ever vigilant of that. As constituency representatives, we will all be aware of problems that have arisen, for example in dealing with child witnesses. It is legitimate that the Lord President should be able to ensure that appropriate and adequate training is given to members of the judiciary.
The Lord President and the judiciary were correct in arguing that it would be wrong for Parliament to seek to dictate to them what training should be provided. However, it is equally appropriate that Parliament should be able to demand that there will be training for those who are given that important job. They are entrusted with the safety of our communities, and they have to make important decisions regarding not just people's wealth and bank balances but their whole lives—for example, they decide whether marriages are annulled. Robert Brown will be aware, as I am, of the difficulties—which would tax the wisdom of Solomon—in deciding the relationships between parents and children. Those are fundamental matters, and we must ensure that our judiciary are properly and adequately prepared to make those decisions. We must strike the right balance and have not a judiciary that can be dictated to by Parliament or directed by Government, but a judiciary that is properly empowered.
This is the first piece of our justice legislation, as Mr Butler is always keen to remind me. We believe that we have been and will continue to be well served by the common law of Scotland, but, where necessary, we will not hesitate to legislate in due course.
I reiterate the importance of having a strong trident of government. Parliament today has the opportunity to pass a measure of constitutional significance. The separation of powers is a key principle of our system of governance, and it is fundamental to our constitutional arrangements and the idea of fairness under the law. The bill will strengthen the relationship between the legislature, the Executive and the judicial arm of the trident, enshrining in law the independence of the judiciary and ensuring that it is supported by an efficient courts administration. I commend the bill to Parliament.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—