Tribunal System Reform
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7116, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on administrative justice and the future of tribunals.
14:59
Today’s debate is about tribunals and the wider landscape of administrative justice. It may seem a dry subject but it is an important one when we consider that more people appear at a tribunal than in court. This might not be the most riveting debate, but it certainly is fundamental, and I am grateful to all those who participate. I welcome the position taken by the Opposition, and I confirm that we will accept all the amendments.
Overall, tribunals deal with considerably more cases than the civil courts, and those who serve on and work for them do an excellent job. In some respects, tribunals have been the Cinderella of the justice system, with fragmented and inefficient administrative support, sometimes with inadequate training for members, and disjointed judicial leadership and authority.
I am announcing two important developments that allow tribunals to take their place at the centre of Scotland’s justice system. First, I will outline the path that has led us to the announcements.
In 2001, the Leggatt review of United Kingdom tribunals found that too often tribunals were daunting to users, underresourced, inefficient and not sufficiently independent of Government sponsors. Sir Andrew Leggatt recommended that tribunals be brought together into an independent, coherent, professional, cost-effective and user-friendly system. Leggatt’s report later led to the unification of UK tribunals into a single structure with a judicial senior president. That was a big step, but it did not deal with Scotland’s devolved tribunals and took no account of our separate legal system.
In 2008, a group led by Lord Philip looked in more detail at tribunals in Scotland. The report concluded:
“The present tribunals system in Scotland is extremely complex and fragmented”
and it
“does not meet the key principles of independence and coherence”.
Those conclusions were later endorsed by the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution.
Options identified by Philip were considered by the Scottish committee of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. It recommended that Scottish tribunals should be brought together in an integrated structure. As a minimum, the support for Scottish devolved tribunals should be integrated and ideally, it suggested, there should be a new Scottish tribunals service to support tribunals that deal with both devolved and reserved matters.
I can announce that we have made substantial progress. On 1 December, we will establish a Scottish tribunals service as a delivery unit within the Scottish Government. It will initially bring together administrative support for five tribunals: the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland, the private rented housing panel, the Pensions Appeal Tribunals for Scotland, and the Scottish charity appeals panel.
I am interested in the phrase that the cabinet secretary used—a delivery unit within the Scottish Government. Will he elaborate on how that meets the Philip objective of independence of Government?
I will come to that. Obviously, Mr Brown’s point is correct—there is supposed to be a separation of powers. We are simply getting the procedure right, and I take on board the caveat that he adds.
The change will save money through more efficient use of staff offices and tribunal venues. It will also improve the service to smaller tribunals, with better information technology and financial management systems as well as enhanced administrative support. We know that it is just the first small step on a big journey. The real prize is for all tribunals in Scotland to form an integral part of the Scottish justice system. That will take several years, but we now have a golden opportunity to make it happen.
Kenneth Clarke, the Lord Chancellor, recently announced plans to create a unified judicial structure for England and Wales. He said in his statement that he was entering into discussions with the Lord President and me about the prospect of the responsibility for judicial leadership of tribunals transferring to the Lord President. That proposal also raises the question of the administration of reserved tribunals transferring to the Scottish ministers.
We believe that that should happen. The independence of the Scottish legal system is not even a matter of devolution: our courts have been separate and distinct from the time of the union, whether dealing with Scots law or legislation made by the UK Parliament. With regard to Mr Brown’s point, as a Parliament we have already endorsed positions that separate the judiciary. To an extent, we seek to replicate what the Lord Chancellor seeks—correctly—to do down south. I assure Mr Brown that we do not seek to expand the justice directorate’s empire.
Putting tribunals alongside the courts as a core part of the Scottish justice system is unfinished business that we now have the chance to complete. That is not just about giving more responsibility to Scotland—welcome though that is, as members would expect me to say. It is an opportunity to deliver better justice for the people who depend on tribunals to protect them.
For the first time, devolved and reserved tribunals can be part of a coherent Scottish system with clear judicial independence and leadership—I give Mr Brown that assurance. We hope that we can deliver significant efficiencies by bringing together the administrative support for the 40 or so tribunals that operate here. We can reform the appointments system and we can consider how civil courts and tribunals can work together and learn from each other.
I met the Lord Chancellor just a few weeks back and I made it clear that we welcome his approach. Our respective officials will work closely together to consider the details of how the change might be brought about. There are many complex issues to resolve and the UK Government will want to be reassured that having two tribunal structures will not lead to inconsistencies in the application of UK law.
I have no major concerns on that score—the Scottish courts have managed to apply UK law for 300 years without great problems arising. At recent question times, I have been asked about matters such as road traffic law. That involves UK law, but we have managed to apply that in two separate jurisdictions.
We will work closely with the Lord President to establish what form of judicial oversight is best for Scottish tribunals. Fortunately, the AJTC has undertaken the important work that Lord Philip initiated and is consulting on a detailed range of options for developing a Scottish tribunals service. Its thinking will be important and I look forward to seeing its report. I will be more than happy to share that with others, to ensure that we get the system right and that it is appropriate for Scotland in future years.
We will consider the work in the context of our response to Lord Gill’s civil courts review, which we will publish later this year. Lord Gill did not specifically consider tribunals, but we need to look at the two issues together.
We are determined to preserve what is best about accessible, user-friendly and specialist tribunals. Tribunal hearings can be more inquisitorial and members can work with the parties to identify the issues that are at hand, rather than oversee an adversarial contest between lawyers. Often, such an inquisitorial approach best suits the delivery of justice for our people.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that in some tribunals, such as employment tribunals, legalisation of the process has produced a system that is worse than the courts for user-friendliness?
That point is valid. I know that Mr Brown has appeared before many tribunals, as have I. Some are legalistic; some are not. That is a matter of balance. Sometimes, the system must be legalistic. Mental health tribunals can have a significant impact on individuals’ civil liberties and employment matters can involve significant costs. That is why we must be flexible and pragmatic. I welcome the support from around the chamber. We are on a journey that will take some time but will serve our people best.
Some aspirations have been difficult to maintain, as subjects such as employment law have become more complicated—Mr Brown commented on that. Tribunals exercise a judicial function and need to have the skills and authority to do that properly. The principles of accessibility and informality need to be preserved. Far from tribunals becoming like courts, I think that many in the Parliament believe that courts could in many instances become more like tribunals.
I will say a few words about the children’s hearings system. It is a unique system and an important part of Scotland’s integrated approach to child care and justice. Unlike most tribunals, children’s panels do not have a legally qualified chair and, although the 2,500 panel members are specially selected, trained and monitored, they are lay and unpaid volunteers. The hearings system is the subject of legislation that is before the Parliament and is undergoing a specific programme of modernisation and reform, building on its undoubted strengths. In years to come, there may be opportunities for the Scottish tribunals service to work with the bodies that support children’s hearings to deliver a more efficient or better service, but that is for another day. Nothing in the work that we are doing is intended to affect the provisions of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Bill.
These reforms are part of a wider vision of a modern justice system that is fair, independent, efficient, timely and coherent. I ask the Parliament to support the motion in my name. I welcome the support that has been given and the nature of the debate that is taking place. The matter may be perceived as extremely dry—especially by members of the media, who are absent from the chamber—but it is of fundamental importance. We are embarking on a journey. The Government does not view this as a political or ideological matter. We are happy to co-operate with all parties that are represented in the chamber, as we currently co-operate with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that justice delivered by tribunals is an integral part of the Scottish justice system; welcomes the Lord Chancellor’s invitation to the Scottish Ministers to consider with him proposals to devolve responsibility for tribunals operating in Scotland, and further notes and welcomes moves to create an integrated Scottish tribunal service.
15:11
We welcome this opportunity to debate the system of administrative justice in Scotland, especially the future of our system of tribunals. As MSPs, we know how important tribunals can be for the lives of many of our constituents. Tribunals have been set up for important areas such as asylum and immigration, employment, mental health and social security. Of course, we have our cherished children’s hearings system, the legislative reform of which the Parliament is considering and to which the cabinet secretary referred specifically in his speech. I agree with his comments about the relationship between the work of the children’s hearings system and this process.
Many members will have dealt with constituents who have had varying experiences of tribunals—from those who have won their case and feel that the system has worked for them, to those who have not been so successful or who, for whatever reason, have not been so satisfied with the process. However, it is beyond debate that tribunals in Scotland play a crucial role in resolving important issues and complaints. Given the significant developments that have taken place since the publication of the Franks report, which established important principles for the operation of tribunals throughout the UK, it is now right to review the operation of the tribunal system in Scotland, not least because a greater number of tribunals have been established here, both before and after devolution.
The administrative justice steering group has been reviewing our tribunal system. Its report on the future administration and supervision of tribunals in Scotland was published in October 2008, when the group was under the chairmanship of Lord Philip. That was supplemented by the report “Administrative Justice in Scotland—The Way Forward”, which the group published in June last year.
After considering a number of potential options for the reform of the tribunal system, the group made clear that it saw a persuasive case for a Scottish tribunals service to oversee all three categories of tribunal in Scotland: UK tribunals in Scotland, Scottish tribunals that existed before devolution and the new devolved Scottish tribunals. The group suggests that there is a strong argument in favour of such a solution from a purely legal perspective, because justice is almost entirely a devolved matter in Scotland.
When I see a motion from this Government, with its stated nationalist aims of seeking ever greater devolution of power for its own sake, calling for further devolution, the cynic in me is immediately suspicious. However, it is right that we welcome the Lord Chancellor’s invitation to consider proposals to devolve responsibility for tribunals operating in Scotland. Indeed, that direction of travel for our tribunal system was outlined in 2005, in a concordat between the UK Government and the then Scottish Executive that talked of
“the possibility that at some future date the Scottish Ministers may wish to create a unified tribunal administration in Scotland embracing both central government and devolved tribunals.”
Lord Philip’s report found that there were strong arguments for such an arrangement. In its report, the Calman commission did not demur from his findings that there are inconsistencies in the system of appointment to tribunals in Scotland and that we lack a co-ordinating body for Scottish tribunals, which may lead to a narrowness of outlook, inhibiting the development of substantive and procedural law and creating inefficiencies and a lack of value for money. When such findings are made about the system of tribunals in Scotland, the only responsible thing to do is look to improve matters significantly.
We must also look at the wider context. We have not yet reformed our administration and governance of tribunals, whereas there has been significant reform in England and Wales through the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The motivations for the reform of the system in England and Wales are identified by Lord Philip as motivations for the reform of the system in Scotland. Those motivations are: to ensure that processes are independent and impartial, that there is a coherent system and that it is one that benefits from an independent and skilled judiciary.
Lord Philip identifies problems for the current system in Scotland in each of those areas. He points to evidence of a lack of independence in the operation of some tribunals. The administration of some devolved tribunals, although it is provided by an independent secretariat, is funded and sponsored by directorates within the Scottish Government. Most of those appointed to tribunals outwith the Tribunals Service are appointed by the Scottish ministers or by local authorities. Robert Brown’s question to the cabinet secretary about the new delivery unit raised the very good point, which needs to be addressed, of how the unit will be set up to be in tune with the issues outlined in Lord Philip’s report. The report states that there is no consistent system for the appointment of tribunal members and chairs in Scotland.
As the cabinet secretary said, the report points to fragmentation in our tribunal system, with tribunals working in isolation and not sharing IT systems, administration and training programmes. It outlines a number of disadvantages resulting from that, including the concern that such fragmentation and lack of consistency can inhibit the development of substantive and administrative law.
There is a strong case to be considered for the establishment of a Scottish tribunals service with responsibility for all tribunals in Scotland. The report argues that that option should result in a much more joined-up system of administration than there is now, with all tribunals in Scotland being centrally administered by the same organisation, which would allow tribunals policy to be considered as a coherent aspect of devolved civil justice policy. However, the report points out that such reform could also create difficulties, as Scottish tribunals may no longer have the same access to shared resources, training and premises as UK tribunals. Such practical considerations require careful deliberation, which is why our amendment calls for a wide consultation on the reform of the tribunal system that should include those currently involved in the operation of tribunals as well as those who help to advise and represent people who take cases to tribunals, including Citizens Advice Scotland and, of course, trade unions.
Trade unions advise that they are concerned about issues such as the report’s proposal that any new central administration of tribunals could be located within the Scottish Court Service. Unions fear that that might impact on the way in which tribunals are conducted, which, for good reason, is often very different from the way in which courts are conducted. As Robert Brown said, a tribunal is—not in every case, but often—a more inquisitorial process.
Trade unions are also concerned about the proposed timescale for implementing changes. As the cabinet secretary outlined, the single delivery unit for administering tribunals within the Scottish Government will be established by the end of the year. I understand that a second phase of work will begin in 2011 and a third in 2012. Those changes will have big impacts on our tribunal system, not least for the staff who currently work for tribunals. That is why proper consultation must be engaged in before changes are made. I accept that the first stage is some way down the line, but that principle of consultation needs to be engaged with. After all, we are at the stage at which the Lord Chancellor has invited ministers to consider the devolution of responsibility for all tribunals in Scotland. We are discussing the issue at a point at which, although there has evidently been a great deal of thought and discussion, there is clearly some way to go.
We do not dispute the direction of travel, which is to provide a more coherent and improved structure for the tribunal system in Scotland. As tribunals play an important role in Scottish society, however, it is all the more important to ensure that whatever changes are made, they are the right ones.
Considering the practical issues that I raised and, indeed, the other issues to which the cabinet secretary referred, there are important questions that need to be given careful consideration to ensure that the changes are the right ones and that they are carried out in the most effective manner.
On that basis, we will support the motion. I am pleased to hear that the Government will support our amendment.
I move amendment S3M-7116.2, to insert at end:
“, and, in doing so, recognises that any forthcoming proposals from the Scottish Government for reform of the tribunals system should be consulted on widely, including with those currently involved in the operation of tribunals, as well as trade unions, Citizens Advice Scotland and other organisations that support those taking cases to tribunals.”
15:20
Although a debate on administrative justice and the future of tribunals may not be the most glamorous one that the chamber has ever witnessed, it is an important and timely topic. The issues at stake in tribunals are important to citizens who rely on their services and the remedies that they offer, so the effective operation of the tribunal system should be important to us all. I will examine how we have arrived at the current situation, the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, and the possible road ahead for administrative justice.
We should acknowledge the work that has already been done in this policy area—work that has gone a long way towards informing our debate. In particular, the administrative justice steering group, chaired by Lord Philip, contributed greatly to where we are today. Its remit was to provide advice on the administrative justice framework in Scotland and, in particular, the likely impact of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. In the steering group’s report, administrative justice is defined as
“initial decision-making by public bodies affecting citizens’ rights and interests ...;”
and
“systems for resolving disputes relating to such decisions and for considering citizens grievances.”
We should keep that definition in mind, as it highlights just how significant the subject of our debate is to our society and the people whom we represent.
We should also acknowledge the role of voluntary groups, citizens advice bureaux and other independent advocates in representing people who have been unfairly dealt with. They are a valuable part of the administrative justice system and play an important role in our society.
The principle of tribunals is ancient. Indeed, Roman tribunes—from where the word “tribunal” originates—were elected to protect the rights of the people from arbitrary acts. The tribunal system as we know it grew up on an ad hoc basis during the 20th century. An important landmark was the 1957 Franks report into the abuse of executive authority and maladministration. Critically, it moved tribunals from an executive and administrative model towards a judicial footing, based on the three principles of openness, fairness and impartiality.
The Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, has outlined plans to create a unified judiciary in England and Wales under the overall leadership of the Lord Chief Justice. That would mean bringing together the administration of the courts and tribunals in England and Wales and would involve primary legislation, which the Lord Chancellor has indicated he is willing to introduce. However, it would also have implications in Scotland, as the senior president of tribunals is a statutory role that has jurisdiction here. The Lord Chancellor has made it clear that any transfer of the senior president’s tribunal responsibilities to the Lord President in Scotland should preserve the benefits of the existing arrangements here. I am pleased that constructive discussions have taken place between the UK Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Government, and I hope that ministers will continue to keep members informed of the progress of those discussions.
Members will be aware from their constituency case loads that public bodies do not always get it right in the delivery of services or the upholding of rights. Indeed, the redress of grievances has been and continues to be one of the main roles of a politician, whether an MP, an MSP, an MEP or a councillor. Having regularly to represent constituents in seeking to redress grievances gives us a good background when it comes to legislating to ensure that our system works most effectively.
As the Philip report highlighted, there should be three aims to administrative justice. First, our focus should be on ensuring that decisions that affect people’s rights are correct first time. Secondly, tribunals exist to ensure that, when decisions are incorrect or the treatment of citizens is otherwise defective, there are effective redress mechanisms. Thirdly, public bodies should learn from their mistakes, so as to increase the likelihood of getting it right first time.
As the Lord Chancellor has indicated, the priority in any transfer of responsibilities should be that we retain the benefits of our system, but we should also seek to improve any areas of it that have been identified as having weaknesses.
Measured against the aims of the administrative justice system, the Philip report concluded that incorrect initial decisions and other administrative failings are more frequent than they should be. Those decisions affect people’s lives, and it is therefore extremely important that as many of those decisions as possible are correct in the first instance.
On the issue of effective redress, the report concluded that the current system was operating “tolerably well”, although it had “important deficiencies”. It identified difficulties in individuals being able to access the means of redress on grounds of cost, lack of expertise and other confusion over the process of some complaints mechanisms.
Thirdly, the report stated that many organisations are not effective in gathering or implementing feedback that might inform their drive to efficient and correct decision making. Some organisations generate large numbers of complaints every year over a long period with little sign of improvement. That is unacceptable.
This is a useful debate. I hope that it will inform the future course of action regarding administrative justice. By redressing grievances, tribunals play an important role in our society, and it is right that we should consider ways to ensure that they continue to do so in future. The issues at stake in tribunals are often of great importance to individuals, so ensuring that the system is operating as effectively as possible should be of paramount importance to us.
As it says in my amendment, when those powers are devolved, we need to ensure that the best possible model is achieved, capturing the best of the existing system while dealing with any existing problems.
I move amendment S3M-7116.1, to insert at end:
“, and further notes that the Lord Chancellor has emphasised that any transfer of powers should seek to preserve the benefits of existing arrangements.”
15:26
Traditional law, as most of us understand it, is based on rights held by individual citizens that can be vindicated in the courts: rights under property law, contract or delict; rights under family law or executries; and rights against infringement of personal safety or personal liberty. Rights of that kind are personal and, nowadays, lie within the framework of the European convention on human rights. Some tribunals also operate in that field; others are different.
When I was a law student, I was told that Britain did not have a proper system of administrative justice like that in other European countries. Scandinavian countries had a strange beast called an ombudsman who could haul public bodies over the coals. France had a whole separate system of administrative courts to which public bodies and their actions were accountable, culminating in the council of state. However, everyone knew that that was because European Governments were a wee bit despotic and that individual liberties were not well entrenched. Here in Britain, of course, we had the best civil service in the world, and the Crown and public authorities were in many respects accountable only through ministers in Parliament.
In reality, it turned out that citizens of other European countries were better protected against unlawful, incompetent or excessive acts of public bodies than we were. As John Lamont touched on, a range of tribunal-like bodies have been set up on an ad hoc basis to provide some form of redress to citizens with a complaint. The Philip report of 2009 reviewed the resulting clutter. Its key findings were, first, that many of the initial decisions made by public sector organisations in Scotland are unsound; and, secondly, that a rational and consistent system of tribunals needs to be put in place, to which people have effective access. The word “effective” is important here.
I stress that, as in any set-up, it is far better to have a system that gets the original decision right than simply to have an effective remedy to pick up the pieces afterwards. The Auditor General for Scotland, the Accounts Commission, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education and the other inspectorates are all increasingly focused on improving standards and getting public bodies in an efficient state to deliver the right decisions and the right services. However, I ask the minister why there is no audit of the extent to which public bodies comply with the ECHR, which it is their duty to comply with and which itself is a powerful analytical tool for proper decision making.
However, even the most effective body will make mistakes, so there must be a proper system of sorting things out. I am not a vast fan of complaints systems. I am concerned about getting the proper balance here. In ordinary life, if someone has a dispute with their partner, friend, neighbour or even their employer, they do not so much want redress, compensation or to be proved right as to have the issue sorted out, perhaps with an apology, and the restoration of harmony and goodwill. So it is with public bodies, too. In my experience, as a solicitor, a councillor and a parliamentarian, it is a bad idea to be too obsessed with getting one’s pound of flesh. When we were elected in 1999—
Mr Brown referred to an audit to establish whether bodies comply with the ECHR. Plainly, the Scottish Government has a duty to comply. If Mr Brown wishes me to answer the point later, I wonder whether he would explain more about his concerns. Are there particular examples of non-compliance by tribunals or those that use them?
That is not the point that I was trying to make to Mr Ewing, although I am grateful for his intervention. My point is really that the public bodies over which the tribunals have decision-making powers are subject to the ECHR, but there are no mechanisms in the work of the Auditor General, for example, to test whether they comply with those standards in the way in which they work. Human rights groups in Scotland have raised that issue with me and I have raised it with the Auditor General.
When I was elected to the Parliament in 1999—I dare say that this was the same for other members—there descended upon me a host of people who had dragged ancient and insoluble complaints around every agency and elected representative in Scotland, and who had written to the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Law Society for Scotland demanding instant redress under the ECHR. My point is that public bodies should be geared up to sort out problems rather than to enter into formal and sometimes unsatisfactory complaints procedures that are conducted in incomprehensible jargon. There should also be the concept of finality, so that, once an issue has been reviewed by a genuinely independent outside body, it cannot be dragged off again to all sorts of other bodies for further examination of the entrails.
If all attempts to resolve the issue fail, the tribunal system comes into play. I strongly support Lord Philip’s recommendation that there should be a guarantee in statute on the independence of tribunals because some bodies are widely regarded as a rubber stamp for the local authority. As I said in my earlier intervention, because the Scottish tribunals service is to be an agency within the Government, it is different from the Scottish Court Service, which we have recently made rather more independent.
There is probably agreement that there should be at least a Scottish tribunals service covering devolved tribunals, and the minister made an announcement about that just now. The question whether that service should also incorporate reserved tribunals is a bit more nicely balanced than the minister makes out. There have been some issues about the procedures in immigration law, for example, and whether they are comparable between England and Scotland, and what the standard United Kingdom legislation is on that. We are talking not just about the substantive law but about procedural law, and the discussions with the Lord Chancellor, which are very welcome, should test those issues.
Will the member take another intervention?
I need to make progress because of the timescale.
It depends on how much more you have to say, Mr Brown.
I have got a little bit more to say, Presiding Officer, so I will progress if I may and perhaps the minister can come back to the point during his response.
The Cabinet secretary talked about the children’s hearings system and he has confirmed that the procedures in the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Bill that is currently before the Parliament will continue. However, there is a cautionary note to be sounded that the desire for uniformity, and for a simple and comprehensive structure of tribunals, important though it is, has to be careful not to casually dismantle bodies that work well and economically in their present form.
There are obvious and immediate advantages in moving to appoint tribunal members through the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, in sharing expertise with the tribunals across the UK, and in rationalising administrative support. But again we must be careful that uniform procedural rules are suited to the individual subject areas. We must also make sure that people can present their cases effectively. I have already touched on the question of the inquisitorial power of the tribunal being properly used.
I share the view that the size of the jurisdiction in Scotland might militate against a two-tier system of first and upper-tier tribunals, but any changes to jurisdiction should not repeat the constitutional outrage of SSI 2008/349, which restricted access to the Court of Session by statutory instrument. Such matters must be fully considered by the Parliament.
Today’s debate is on a hugely important, if fairly technical, subject, but it is a vital debate because it is about how the ordinary citizen can get redress against overbearing, incompetent or uncaring public services. We all depend on such services, but those at the bottom of the heap are more dependent than anyone else and therefore least empowered when the system fails. We must make sure we get it right in the details and in the principle.
15:34
For too long we have been faced with an alarmingly confused guddle of tribunals, hearings, panels, committees, secretariats and commissioners when we have sought a legal ruling on any one of the many issues that are vital to a wide range of matters of importance to our lives. Some are administered by independent quangos here in Scotland, others by a Scottish offshoot of a UK body, some by local authorities and others by health boards. They cover matters as varied as licences for haulage companies, disciplinary hearings for children, workplace discipline, the ownership or tenancy of property, insolvency and social care provision, not forgetting the payment of parking fines and criminal injuries compensation. This confusing group of quasi-judicial bodies delivers what is known as administrative justice in Scotland.
Although the workings of the criminal and civil courts are conveniently overseen by the Scottish Court Service, responsibility for administrative justice is spread over a multitude of smaller organisations, several of which are retained under the control of UK-wide organisations—not all of which understand Scotland’s unique legal system.
The situation in other parts of the UK was almost as confused as ours until Westminster passed the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which, among other things, sought to gather all tribunals in England and Wales under a single body, the UK Tribunals Service—although it covers only England and Wales, not the UK.
Last year, in its report “Administrative Justice In Scotland—The Way Forward”, the administrative justice steering group, under the chairmanship of Lord Philip, highlighted a number of worrying weaknesses with the current system, and it proposed a series of potential solutions to correct them and to establish a system in Scotland that we can be confident in and proud of.
As regards the failings that were noted, the report contained a warning—to which John Lamont has already referred—that
“incorrect initial decisions and other administrative failings are more frequent than they should be”.
The report also said that more needed to be done to improve systems for raising grievances about the outcome of initial hearings. The steering group noted, unsurprisingly, that members of the public are often “confused by the complexity” of the administrative justice system and struggle to initiate a complaint, particularly as they might be unable to use the process themselves, and the high cost of legal help can act as a barrier to starting an action. That led the group to conclude that
“The existing system does not, therefore, sufficiently meet the needs of users”,
which is a good example of Scottish understatement. I have a great deal of sympathy for the people who have had to deal with the confusing array of quangos and quasi-quangos, and I am all for simplification of this highly complex system.
I spent many years as a trading standards officer, and I have personal experience of how arbitration can help to solve many problems without recourse to the courts. I was directly involved in setting up consumer advice and conciliation services, where local authority trading standards and consumer advice officers did all that they could to facilitate an agreement between disputing traders and consumers without the need to go to the civil or criminal courts.
Such services are hugely beneficial to consumers and honest businesses alike, but I recently found out that, unfortunately, 10 out of Scotland’s 32 councils have now withdrawn those valuable services. That might save a small amount for the councils concerned, but it is a false saving for the community as a whole. I hope that common sense prevails, and that the services can be reinstated. If the councils do not look after their consumers and honest businesses, we might have to look elsewhere to get things done. Perhaps some other body that understands trading standards and consumer protection is the answer, and I think that we need to consider that.
Members will gather from my comments that I am very much in favour of easy, low-cost access to justice, and of simple, sensible solutions to problems. I am very much in favour of simplifying the current confused situation. I therefore welcome the justice secretary’s announcement that a new Scottish tribunals service will be established on 1 December this year. The new service will bring together the administrative support for the Scottish tribunals into one organisation, which will create a more efficient and effective tribunal administration, and it can begin to tackle the widely criticised fragmentation and incoherence of the tribunals.
I warmly welcome the news that the Lord Chancellor has formally written to suggest that the Scottish Government and Whitehall officials develop detailed proposals for the devolution of tribunals. That would ensure that all tribunals in Scotland were part of the Scottish justice system, and it would help us to make our justice system as coherent as possible. The Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated on his common sense, and I am sure that we will soon see a streamlined tribunal system in Scotland that is fit for the 21st century. Oh that others in London—or even some of the unionists in our midst, especially Richard Baker—were equally enlightened! We might then get sensible proposals for further devolution—rather than the hotchpotch, minimalist, dangerous and damaging Calman proposals—or, better still, independence, so that such decisions would automatically be taken here in Scotland for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
15:40
As all speakers so far have said, tribunals play an integral part in Scotland’s justice system; they are very important. For years, they have provided a more specialised function than that of an ordinary court of law and they are intended to provide an opportunity to hear cases in a less formal and less adversarial way. Their key principles are openness, fairness and impartiality. I know that all of us in the chamber want to continue to sign up to those principles.
However, tribunals have grown over the years and the current complex and disjointed system is causing concern, which needs to be addressed. I know that members across the parties want to deal with this matter.
Devolution has benefited the people of Scotland and will do so in future, but it has made the tribunal system complicated. Policy responsibility is split between the Scottish and UK Governments, which Lord Philip said in 2008 presents
“a lack of coherence and consistency.”
I expect that most members believe that it is important to reform the tribunal system, because we all agree that the status quo is no longer cohesive.
I view favourably the idea of devolving the responsibility of tribunals in Scotland, but I believe that we have to go further. To ensure the true independence of our tribunal system, it is paramount that the Scottish ministers loosen their grip on Scottish tribunals.
The administrative justice steering group is proposing five options and a case could be made for most of them. However, if we are serious about reform and about establishing greater independence, the steering group’s options 4 and 5 would certainly address those important criteria.
Option 4 focuses on establishing a new Scottish tribunals service that would co-ordinate the administration of all Scottish tribunals and provide support. Option 5, which has been dubbed the “radical extension” of the fourth option, would involve the proposed Scottish tribunals service overseeing all three categories of tribunals in Scotland. That option would provide the degree of impartiality needed, as long as the service was independent of the Scottish ministers.
The minister’s words were welcome, but we have to consider further how the tribunals are resourced. We have looked in detail at the administration and organisation, but there is not much in the documents that I have read so far about the resources for tribunals and for people going to them. Organisations in my area have complained that not enough support is available for the individuals involved, which has to be addressed.
It is important that any consultation on how things might operate in future includes trade unions and third sector organisations, such as the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth unemployed workers centre. Last year in employment tribunals alone, the centre won tens of thousands of pounds for people throughout Lanarkshire and, importantly, helped people to return to their jobs. However, the centre tells me that there are difficulties for ordinary laypeople taking a case to tribunal. It tells me that, over the years, the system has become far more legalistic, which the minister recognised in his opening speech. People find it very difficult to present their own case. One of the intentions is that people should be able to present their own case at a tribunal, but that is becoming impossible.
I want to raise a matter that I had hoped to raise with Robert Brown: the burden that is brought about by the massive increase in cases that relate to employment support allowances and benefit appeals, which Cathie Craigie rightly mentions. Is she concerned, as we are, that further changes to benefits law in the UK would inevitably mean that the existing huge workload in relation to benefits appeals would be significantly enhanced by a further significant increase in the number of such appeals?
We—and many of the voluntary organisations in my constituency—have concerns about that, but those must be addressed by implementing a system that offers people the opportunity to go before a tribunal with confidence and to be able to cope with the process. When people go to tribunals just now, they feel as if they are going into an arena with one arm tied behind their back. There is certainly not a level playing field at present, and we must ensure that there is.
I am told that legal aid may be available for preparatory work in complex cases and certain circumstances, but that happens rarely; in general, legal aid is not available. People can present their own case, as we have heard today but, when they are faced with the prospect of going up against a qualified lawyer, they feel that they are not equipped. Without the financial wherewithal to engage legal representation, they feel that the process is unfair.
Individuals are turning to voluntary groups for advice and assistance and for their advocacy skills at tribunals. Cumbernauld and Kilsyth unemployed workers centre provides a great service to local people but, like other voluntary organisations, it struggles financially and worries about what the future may hold, not only for the centre itself but for the people who it knows need representation.
If we want to continue to safeguard the differences between the ordinary civil courts and tribunals, and if we want dispute resolution to take place outwith the civil courts, we must find a way to properly resource people to access tribunals. That may be brought about through legal aid, or by an acknowledgement from the Government that it needs to directly resource the voluntary organisations that provide such support. I urge the minister to insist that that is part of the on-going consideration of tribunal reform in Scotland.
It is evident that the system needs reform to ensure that it becomes less complex and more independent and continues to operate at the highest levels as a specialist legal body. It is also clear that access to that specialist service must be properly resourced and available to all, regardless of their ability to pay.
15:47
I will explain why I agree with Cathie Craigie on the need for low-cost access to tribunals, and why that will not necessarily cost anything.
Tribunals are courts of appeal for administrative decisions and are therefore not very different in their function from any other court of appeal. We need courts of appeal because people who make primary decisions are human, and human nature means that we make mistakes, act in ignorance, are occasionally lazy and are very occasionally biased.
I will reflect on the stage 1 consideration that the Justice Committee is currently undertaking of Bill Butler’s Damages (Scotland) Bill because it is instructive. The fact that most members who are present today are on that committee will add some flesh to that.
Administrative decisions, regardless of what they are about, essentially involve the application of rules to a set of facts. There are two models for applying rules—at the extremes, that is; members will recognise that there are many in between.
At one end we can have a set of rules that are so detailed and complete that they provide for every situation, even if in reality that is sometimes arbitrary and unjust. The decision maker simply uses an algorithm and comes up with the answer, rather like using a calculator. That application of rules in an administrative setting is very mechanical, but it will be done correctly so long as there is a court that can review it. If there is no court to review it, mistakes will be made and nobody will worry. However, in that context, the court does not have to be particularly swift or available because we know that, if somebody makes a mistake and it is challenged, it will be corrected. Should an error be made, there will always be an opportunity to challenge and correct it, so the system will work even if the judicial process is both slow and expensive.
Contrast that with the other end of the spectrum where, instead of having an algorithm whereby everything is laid down, the decision maker goes through a hierarchy of principles and tries to apply the facts to them. When errors are made in that system, a slow and expensive legal review system will fail. That is one of the things that we have discovered in our scrutiny of the Damages (Scotland) Bill. The courts have not sorted out some simple things to do with the award of damages for fatal accidents because it is too expensive and too uncertain to go there. However, had another court system been readily available, those things could have been sorted. If we try to make our decisions on principles, we will get a good system only if the appeals system is easily accessible and cheap enough so that we will go there to get a decision.
If someone has easy access to a good court of appeal, how many mistakes will be made? Very few, because the person making the decision realises that the decision will be appealed, that they will lose and that it will cost them one way or another, so they have an incentive to get it right. To go back to the beginning, if one has an absolute set of rules that one can follow like a computer, the system of appeals does not have to be good so long as it exists. If one applies principles, the system of appeals has to be good, swift and available; otherwise, errors would not be corrected because there would be too much risk involved in the correction process. That is what has emerged during consideration of the Damages (Scotland) Bill, where there is a risk that we will end up including some arbitrary rules to overcome the problem of a bad judicial process, which means that it cannot be appealed properly.
It is plainly important to have good-quality folk on tribunals, good training and a sensible structure and I do not want to gainsay any of that, but the way to sort out administrative decisions is to have easy, low-cost access to tribunals. If there is such access, it is much more likely that the original decision will be correct. Low-cost access does not cost any more because most of the cases never happen because good decisions are made by the administrators in the first place. Above all, we need cheap, low-cost access to tribunals and then our administrators will do a good job.
15:53
This is a welcome debate on what is sometimes a forgotten but nonetheless important part of the Scottish justice system. It is fair to say that administrative justice is a key but fragmented part of our justice system. Over the years, a number of seminal reports—others have mentioned the Franks, Leggatt and Philip reports—have looked at creating a coherent system that is fair, accessible, timely, efficient and inexpensive to use. However, what we have thus far is the result of the ad hoc development of tribunals over many decades.
Current oversight of the tribunal system is provided by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, the Scottish committee of which is responsible for promoting good practice across all the tribunals operating in Scotland, regardless of whether they deal with reserved or devolved issues. It draws its membership from lawyers, academics, ombudsmen and lay people.
Most tribunals have been created by individual pieces of primary legislation, resulting in a complex variety of administrative arrangements that provide little coherence between tribunals.
The administrative justice steering group was tasked with reviewing the administrative justice system in Scotland, taking into account the impact of UK-wide reforms. Its interim report, “Options for the Future Administration and Supervision of Tribunals in Scotland”, assessed the current system against the recommendations of the report “Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service”. The steering group’s recommendations are summarised under three headings: “Independent and impartial processes”, “An independent and skilled judiciary” and “A coherent system”.
Much of the thinking that underlies the interim report can be traced back to previous reports that examined tribunals. In 1957, the Franks committee identified the key characteristics of tribunals as openness, fairness and impartiality, which continue to be the watchwords of tribunals today. The desire for those characteristics to remain at the heart of tribunals is reflected in the administrative justice steering group’s report and recommendations.
The recommendations must be examined in the Scottish context. Bearing that in mind, it is clear that in seeking to create a coherent Scottish tribunal system a number of baseline points need to be established. First, we must always have at the front of our thinking the distinctiveness of the Scottish legal system and the requirement that tribunals fit within the system’s overarching principles.
Secondly, it is necessary that tribunals, like other parts of the justice system, are able to act independently. I very much agree with what Robert Brown said in that regard.
Thirdly, although tribunals are part of the overall justice system, it is crucial that their distinctiveness is maintained. The differences between tribunals and the ordinary civil courts, and the benefits that those differences bring to service users, must be acknowledged and safeguarded. Tribunals are only one part of our administrative justice system and are intended to provide a more accessible and user-friendly forum for resolving disputes than is offered by the courts. Although many people might find the prospect of appearing before a tribunal daunting, I think that people usually find that more acceptable than having to go to court would be. It is therefore essential that we have an efficient and effective tribunal system that works properly for the people who need to use it.
With those principles in mind, the administrative justice steering group put forward five options for the future shape of tribunals in Scotland. Option 1 is to retain the status quo, but I do not think that many people support such an approach. Option 2 is to improve the mechanisms for co-operation between tribunals that are part of the Tribunals Service and devolved Scottish tribunals. Option 3 is to bring all Scottish tribunals within the remit of the Tribunals Service. Options 4 and 5, which I think are the only serious options are, respectively, to create a Scottish tribunals service to support all Scottish tribunals and to create a Scottish tribunals service to support all tribunals in Scotland, including those that are currently administered by the Tribunals Service.
After examining the five options, the Scottish committee of the administrative justice steering group concluded that the best option for users in Scotland would be a Scottish tribunals service that supported all tribunals that operate in Scotland. I listened with interest when Robert Brown said that he was not sure whether option 4 or option 5 would be the better one, but I think that it is self-evident that option 5 would be better for the future of tribunals in Scotland, because it would provide the most clear-cut and efficient way of administering that part of our justice system. It would create a system that better met best-practice principles of justice by separating the administrative support for tribunals from the related policy area—that relates to a main criticism of the current arrangements.
In addition, it is clear that there are efficiencies to be gained from public sector simplification. The cost of cases varies widely between different tribunals, in ways that do not reflect the complexity of cases. Efficiencies can be generated through co-location, the sharing of information technology systems and best practice, and better governance and performance of corporate functions such as finance and contract management.
It has been estimated that in the first year of operation of a Scottish tribunals service, savings could be in the region of £50,000 to £100,000. Such savings on the current arrangements would be welcome, and should make us stop and think about the lessons that we can draw from and the impact on the public purse of changes to administrative and support services.
In that context, I make a wider point about what we can learn from the proposed changes to the tribunal system. At a time when we face unprecedented cuts to our budget, we need to look at all areas of expenditure, including the overall structure of the public sector. That is widely acknowledged. If it is true to say that the tribunal system in Scotland grew up over a long time and in an ad hoc fashion, it is equally true to say that the public sector has developed in a somewhat similar fashion. That is not a criticism but a statement of fact. No one ever sat down and designed the Scottish public sector in a co-ordinated and coherent fashion; the sector merely developed and changed at different times and in different ways.
That is clear when we consider something as simple—although often sensitive—as the huge variety of boundaries that operate in different parts of the public sector. Why do the boundaries of councils, health boards and the emergency services not line up? Do we need 32 councils, 14 health boards, eight police forces and eight fire and rescue services to cover a population of 5 million? If we can see the logic in bringing together the administration of tribunals in Scotland, what is the argument for having separate administration and support services, not just for eight police forces and eight fire brigades, but for the police and fire services? Should we not be considering the model that is proposed for the Scottish tribunals service as a possible option for a united support service that would cover the police, fire and ambulance services, for example?
Any changes that are proposed in the coming months and years need to be considered with two things in mind: whether they would make the service more effective and efficient, and whether they would protect front-line services. I think that they will, in relation to the Scottish tribunals service, but if the answer to those questions in relation to the wider public sector is also yes, perhaps it is time that we made those changes. If the unification of support services saves money and means that we keep front-line firefighters, police officers and paramedics in place, that is what we should do. The lead that is being shown in relation to the Scottish tribunals service will have implications beyond simply the future administration of tribunals.
16:00
I am tempted to comment on Nigel Don’s thoughts on the Damages (Scotland) Bill, but that would not be appropriate, as the evidence-taking process at stage 1 has just been completed and the evidence is now in the hands of my colleagues on the Justice Committee, who are drafting what I hope will be a positive report.
This is a timely debate on a matter of some significance, with regard to the proper delivery of justice in Scotland. It is beyond dispute that the present tribunal system in Scotland is extremely complex and somewhat fragmented, with policy responsibility for tribunals that operate in Scotland being divided between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. Additionally, there are not insubstantial differences in the manner in which the various tribunals are managed and run. That is why Scottish Labour believes that it is sensible to consider the devolution of responsibility for tribunals that operate in Scotland, with the aim of making the tribunal system more effective.
There is no doubt that the current system is somewhat byzantine. As members know, a tripartite system for the administration of justice operates in Scotland. UK-wide tribunals for which responsibility lies with the Westminster Government are supported variously by the Tribunals Service and the Scottish Government, with the Lord President and the Scottish ministers retaining a significant role in relation to some reserved UK-wide tribunals. An additional complicating factor is that Scottish tribunals that were set up by UK legislation before 1998 are generally the responsibility of either the Scottish Government or local authorities, whereas policy responsibility for tribunals that were established after devolution falls solely to the Scottish Government.
Although the Tribunals Service was established in England and Wales in 2006 to provide administrative support to the judiciary who hear cases, there is not yet a fully developed Scottish equivalent that provides similar overarching support and co-ordination.
Given that Labour agrees with the Scottish Government that
“justice delivered by tribunals is an integral part of the Scottish justice system”,
it is now time to end the current labyrinthine approach.
The effective functioning of tribunals is a matter of real importance. The resolution of disputes according to law must be as comprehensible and effective as possible. Our constituents demand and expect no less.
On that point, the Calman commission noted—rightly—that the current system of tribunals in Scotland did not appear to be functioning in the best interests of the people of Scotland. Indeed, the difficulties that the arrangements have created are widely recognised and have been widely reflected in this debate. The Calman commission endorsed the direction of travel that was set out by the administrative justice steering group, chaired by Lord Phillip, which published its first report, “Options for the Future Administration and Supervision of Tribunals in Scotland”, in September 2008. That led to the publication of a discussion paper on options for the reform of tribunals in Scotland in June, to which members have referred.
The option that is being developed, I am glad to say, is option 5. That is because of the advice that the Scottish Government sought from the Scottish committee of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council in relation to three of the options. The committee’s advice was that anything short of option 5 would lead to two tribunal systems in Scotland, the first overseeing UK-wide tribunals and the second overseeing Scottish tribunals.
Option 5 proposed the establishment of a new Scottish tribunals service to support both UK-wide tribunals within Scotland and Scottish tribunals. The Scottish Government has gone down that path, with the phased implementation of a Scottish tribunals service, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement in that regard. The long-term aim of the option is to provide administrative support for all tribunals in Scotland whether they deal with devolved or reserved areas of law. That is a sensible, rational approach. We all wish to have a modernised, efficient system for the delivery of justice in Scotland, of which tribunals are an essential component.
Given that tribunals are relatively specialised in the subject matter with which they deal, that many of them combine legal with other special or professional expertise on the judging panel, and that they are delivered in a more informal and less adversarial setting compared with ordinary courts, I am glad that the Government agrees that it is imperative that in reforming the system, any changes are consulted on widely with those who are involved in the operation of tribunals as well as with trade unions—I say that as a committed trade unionist—citizens advice bureaux and other organisations.
On that basis. I will be content to support the Government’s motion, suitably amended, this evening.
16:07
Justice is a tricky topic to nail down. We have our lawyers and our judiciary, who deal with justice every day, and many of my parliamentary colleagues likewise have a legal background. However, I venture that, as a Parliament, we would do well to avoid a narrow legalism. That might not be popular with the lawyers here, but I think that we can all agree that not all legal actions are just and that not all legal decisions that are carried out to the letter of the law are just. As we have heard, tribunals can be extremely important to individuals in overturning decisions and achieving justice.
The Gaelic for justice is còir. That word, as is the case with words in many other languages, is stretched and imbued with other meanings depending on the context. It also means our rights and our dignity as human beings. Likewise, it can mean the right course of action when we wonder how best to act. When we look at such definitions, it is easy to recognise that the quest for justice is at the heart of our work as MSPs, as others have said, whether that is dealing with constituents who are looking for our support or looking over legislation in committee and here in the debating chamber.
When a constituent comes to us and says that they are caught in a web of bureaucracy—or, to use the phrases that they often use, getting nowhere fast or banging their head against a brick wall—we can either retreat behind that web and insist on the ever-ready excuse of the proper channels or, as I hope we more often do, attempt to use whatever influence we have to ensure that the person’s case is given fresh and proper scrutiny and that their rights and circumstances are put at the heart of the procedure that is involved. Basically, I hope that a bit of compassion and a lot of common sense is applied.
Our constituents should not be contorted to fit bureaucracy. Legislation and bureaucracy should be flexible enough to meet the needs of the people whom they affect. As MSPs, we can all help to ensure that constituents are treated justly and with dignity as we represent their interests. Tribunals are one of the key ways in which individuals can challenge state decisions. Indeed, that is what the majority of tribunals of the type that we are discussing today do. By their nature, tribunals affect those who believe that they have not been treated fairly. That makes it all the more important that our system is coherent, easy to understand and use, and independent. As we have heard, concerns about the system were first raised some time ago in the Leggatt report.
Last night, I spoke in Jackie Baillie’s members’ business debate on the important see me campaign, which tries to break down the stigma around mental health. It is welcome that the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland will be one of the first tribunals to be incorporated into the Scottish tribunals service. The Pensions Appeal Tribunals for Scotland will also go to the new body. Given the large number of deaths and casualties in recent years in the armed forces, many of us are very aware of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals for Scotland. As the daughter of a former member of the armed forces, I recall the worry about the dangers that my father might encounter. If anything had happened to him in the line of duty, I would have wanted to know that there was a just and easily accessible tribunals service should it have been needed.
I would very much like all tribunals to be brought under the banner of the Scottish tribunals service and be administered from Scotland. Cathie Craigie mentioned that the sharing of legal powers between the UK and Scotland makes the situation complicated, but everything becomes complicated when two countries try to make laws for one country. I look forward to Cathie Craigie supporting the most straightforward way of dealing with those complications, which is independence.
It was extremely sporting of Richard Baker and Bill Butler to agree that sometimes it is okay to devolve powers from the UK to Scotland.
Does the member agree that it is self-evident that Labour has always agreed that it is important to devolve powers from the UK Government? That is why we are sitting here in this chamber.
Perhaps we should not pursue that point too much in the debate.
I will not do so; I was just complimenting Richard Baker and Bill Butler on how awfully nice they were to us in saying that we might be able to manage tribunals in this country by ourselves.
As many people know, I have a particular interest in the devolution of responsibility for immigration and asylum tribunals. It is particularly important that we have an accessible, easy-to-understand process for people who may not speak English, who have come from a very different legal system and who are often extremely vulnerable, having fled dangerous situations in their country of origin.
In welcoming the proposal, I will mention briefly, as others have done, mediation services, which are a hugely undervalued and therefore underused part of our justice system. Again, that might be something that the lawyers do not want to hear, but that might be because when mediation is used, it tends to have a high success rate of around 80 per cent. Successful mediation means that there is no need to consult lawyers, no need to go to tribunals and no need to go to court.
Mediation may not be particularly appealing to the legal profession, but not only is it quicker and therefore less stressful for all concerned, it is non-confrontational, in that the aim is to find a resolution that is to everyone’s satisfaction and which enables the relationship to continue. In addition, it costs substantially less. Many users of the courts and tribunals services spend public money, and we are all keenly aware of how tight public finances are right now. I have made only brief mention of mediation, but I am confident that we will look at it more closely in future.
No bureaucratic processes are infallible, as every such process is designed by human beings. Tribunals offer a basis for scrutinising those decisions that affect individual citizens. For those reasons, the new Scottish tribunals service is indeed a welcome step towards simplification and tackling some of the issues that were raised in the Leggatt report, and it represents laudable progress towards that report’s goals of coherence and user-friendliness.
16:12
As many members have said, the review of tribunals is the result of the Philip report—or the report of the administrative justice steering group—in 2009. The group was tasked with reviewing the administrative justice system in Scotland, taking into account the impact of UK reforms. Its interim report assessed the tribunal system against the recommendations of the “Tribunals for Users” report.
Like others, Liberal Democrats are concerned that many people may not be able to access justice due to the barriers that the group identified. The 2009 Philip report stated that the current system did not meet the needs of users and that citizens’ ability to access redress mechanisms was hindered by barriers such as cost, the low visibility of some complaints mechanisms and a lack of advice and assistance.
The tribunal landscape in Scotland is highly complex and there are a large range of tribunals, as Stewart Maxwell, Bill Butler and others pointed out. Let us look at but five kinds of tribunal. Each year, employment tribunals in Scotland deal with 22,000 cases, education appeals committees in Scotland receive more than 500 cases and the Pensions Appeal Tribunals for Scotland handle almost 300 cases. There are 32,500 social security and child support appeal cases in Scotland and children’s hearings Scotland holds almost 43,000 hearings. Almost 100,000 cases are dealt with by those five kinds of tribunal every year, and that is just a few of the kinds of tribunal that exist. Someone who once worked on a tribunal said to me that the number of tribunal cases that are dealt with across Scotland every year is higher than the number of cases that appear in our courts. Perhaps we should reflect on that.
I think that everyone agrees that reform of tribunals in Scotland to bring them within a coherent, independent structure that sits in a clear governance framework is overdue.
Another key issue that was addressed was whether tribunals are sufficiently independent of Government. Therefore, we welcome the large amount of work that the administrative justice steering group and the Scottish committee of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council are carrying out to examine ways of improving the current situation.
In the past nine years, significant reform has already been made to the system that supports tribunals in England and Wales. That has included the creation of one organisation, the Tribunals Service, to provide administrative support to most tribunals that operate in England and Wales and those that operate on reserved matters in Scotland. There has also been legislation to overhaul the structure of tribunals and to introduce an independent appointments system for tribunal members. There is concern that those developments have not been matched in Scotland. A particular concern is that users of Scottish tribunals that deal with devolved matters might not receive the same level of service as users south of the border receive.
The interim report by Lord Philip in 2008 suggested five options for Scotland, the first of which was to retain the status quo. Like Stewart Maxwell and others, I do not think that anyone, anywhere thinks that that is an option, so I am not sure why it was in the report. The option that has perhaps received most support is that of creating a Scottish tribunals service to support all tribunals in Scotland, including those that are currently administered by the Tribunals Service. That is the option that the minister and the Scottish Government have stated is their preference. Today, we are moving towards that. Like Bill Butler, I welcome the minister’s comments about bringing together a number of tribunals and giving them a support service from December this year. We have heard that that is just the start of the way forward. It is a good way forward.
In 2009, the administrative justice steering group, or the Philip group, produced its final report, in which it examined administrative justice in Scotland a bit more broadly. The report states that the term “administrative justice” should be defined broadly to include, first,
“initial decision-making by public bodies affecting citizens’ rights and interests including the substantive rules under which decisions are made and the procedures followed in making decisions”.
Secondly, it should include
“systems for resolving disputes relating to such decisions and for considering citizens’ grievances.”
The key concern is to ensure that public bodies and tribunals get decisions right first time. Stewart Maxwell and Nigel Don made good points about that.
The Philip group made a considerable number of recommendations for public bodies about the point of contact for complainers. It recommended that better procedures be put in place and made several other recommendations with regard to other tribunals. The report concludes that there is considerable concern about citizens’ ability to access and use tribunals and it notes that free services that offer advice and/or representation are not always available to everybody in all areas and that something needs to be done about that.
One recommendation is on the sharing of expertise and resources between the Scottish tribunals service and tribunals in other UK jurisdictions in relation to the training of tribunal members. I suggest that that would benefit Scotland in particular.
Another recommendation relates to ombudsmen. I am sure that all members will agree that our constituents are sometimes unhappy with decisions that ombudsmen make, or are unhappy that ombudsmen are not allowed to take up their complaints. One recommendation is that the presumption against ombudsmen investigating complaints in respect of which the complainer has a right of appeal should be relaxed to leave it more to ombudsmen to decide when to begin an investigation, especially when the remedy would be in court, rather than at a tribunal. That is an excellent suggestion from the group. I hope that the minister will say whether he feels that it would be a positive measure and whether his Government could take it forward.
Following the recommendations of the Philip review, the Scottish committee of the AJTC has developed options for establishing a Scottish tribunals service. In June 2010, it published a discussion paper entitled “Options for Tribunal Reform in Scotland”, which set out issues and sought views by September—I am not quite sure when in September, but obviously we are still just in it.
The Scottish committee has undertaken to provide advice to ministers on its findings by mid-December 2010, and I am sure we all look forward to learning what that advice is. I am glad that the minister has stated today that, as soon as he has them, he will share the findings with us all.
I am happy to support the motion.
I call Bill Aitken to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Mr Aitken, you have quite a long time.
16:20
Gee, thanks.
There is undoubtedly a value in the tribunal system. Its successes must be qualified to some extent, but let us accentuate the positive. I am pleased that the Scottish and UK Governments have clearly reached a consensus ad idem on the approach, because there has undoubtedly been a fragmentation of the existing system and a unified approach would be of much benefit. That said, I caution the Scottish Government to give some consideration to the likely implementation of quite a lot of the Gill report recommendations in the years ahead. Anything that is done with tribunals should be linked to some of the changes that will inevitably come about from that.
What is the value of the tribunal system? First, it is in theory less formal, and in that respect it generally succeeds. Secondly, it avoids a legalistic format that can be inhibiting to a citizen who is seeking to have a grievance redressed, who would much prefer an informal approach. Thirdly, it certainly saves money, although I am not totally convinced that a thorough and analytical piece of research would demonstrate that the money saving is significant. That is something that must be looked at, and I have no doubt that it will be looked at again in conjunction with Lord Gill’s recommendations.
The problems seem to be many and varied. First, the operation of the tribunal system was damned with faint praise in the Philip report. In particular—this must be a matter of concern—there appear to have been a fair number of cases in which the initial decision was wrong and there were administrative failings. I am not suggesting that courts do not get things wrong—of course they do—but I find it a little disturbing that the number of initial decisions that subsequently had to be set right judicially should be so high. The obvious resolution of that particular difficulty is to ensure that those who sit on tribunals get more appropriate advice and administrative back-up. Again, I am sure that the Government will address that point, but we must recognise that there will be a cost involved in that.
There must also be a fairly dramatic rationalisation. I do not think that it is appropriate that we should have the number of tribunals that we have. In many instances, the arguments and procedures are largely coterminous, so we should examine the number and scope of tribunals to see whether there is any way in which we can cut the administration costs and concentrate the minds of those who serve on them, giving proper training to the people who give up their time for them.
Would the member welcome an intervention?
Certainly—I would be delighted.
I am sure that Bill Aitken does not mean to worry us, but I am a bit concerned about what he has said. One of the main advantages of the tribunal system is the expertise that it can gather. I support the one unit, but I think that it is really important that we keep the expertise. What is the Scottish Tories’ position on that?
Expertise is always particularly valuable—on this side of the chamber we demonstrate that repeatedly. [Laughter.]
I do not necessarily think that the expertise to which Mrs Craigie rightly refers would be lost. We would have to ensure that expertise moved sideways and that people who were particularly expert in one field of a tribunal’s operation—mental health, for example—could extend their expertise to other tribunals, such as other health-based tribunals. That would not involve too much difficulty.
We must consider the consumer, if one can use that term to refer to people who take cases before tribunals. The fact is that some dissatisfaction exists. As all of us know from our constituency workloads, many people simply will not take no for an answer and many simply are not satisfied, no matter what any tribunal or MSP does—I see Robert Brown nodding with some vehemence and I know that everybody has the same experience. However, from what I can see, the general feeling is that perhaps the tribunal system is not working for everybody in the way that it should. When we revamp the whole system—as I suspect will happen, albeit some years down the road—we will have to ensure that it works for people.
Mike Pringle was correct to point out the volume of work that tribunals undertake—they deal with a significant number of cases. Many people who are involved in such cases have had no contact with any quasi-judicial process or any other method of dispute resolution. It is important to get the system right, because people must have confidence in any system that exists. If they have no confidence, they will leave dissatisfied and will tell people about that. As a result, the system will fall into disrepute.
We must examine how tribunals are working. Of course, the story is not all bad news. I am attracted by the tribunal system’s simplicity. As I said, my experience of it is limited. I was probably more intimately acquainted with it in my council days, when—for my sins—I chaired the personnel appeals committee that allowed people who had been the subject of disciplinary action to appeal to councillors. If those people disagreed with the committee’s verdict, a subsequent appeal process took them to an employment tribunal.
In general, that arrangement worked reasonably well and usually arrived at the correct decisions. I did not find myself subject to judicial review, which seems to happen rather frequently here. Sometimes, an informal procedure benefits everyone who is concerned. We can reach the truth more simply and people are less inhibited in speaking.
We certainly must retain the tribunal system, but we must take measures to improve it.
16:28
I welcome the opportunity to wind up on tribunals. As several members have said, in the Business Bulletin, the debate did not appear to be the most exciting. However, I always find that such debates allow members across the parties to present their experiences and make relevant speeches so that, when somebody sums up, important points have been made. Parliamentarians are contributing to the work on the Philip report and the work of the various groups that have examined the issue.
As many members have said, tribunals are important and have an impact on many areas of life. They also have an impact on individuals. I was interested to hear Mike Pringle quoting the statistics, of which I was not aware, that show that hundreds and in some cases many thousands go to tribunals. That indicates the impact that tribunals have.
It is clear that the landscape has grown in the devolution years. We now have more than 40 tribunals, so the network is complex. That is the driver for assessing whether obvious improvements could be made not only to make the system work better, but ultimately to provide a better system for people who bring issues to tribunals and who look for appropriate and effective resolution.
When we examine the tribunal landscape, we must address a number of issues that have been raised in speeches today and in various reports that have been produced through the years. We must look at the appointments system, to ensure that there is consistency in how appointments are made across tribunals and that the system is transparent, so that people who come before tribunals have confidence that tribunal members were appointed in an independent manner and can bring their expertise to the table.
As Stewart Maxwell and Robert Brown said, if tribunals are to have the confidence not only of those who serve on them but of the many people who pass through them, it is important that they are independent and are seen to be separate from the Government. I accept the assurance that the cabinet secretary gave about the pilot that has been set up.
Through the years, there has been a great deal of frustration about education appeal committees. Many members will have had constituents complain to them about how education appeals are run. The previous Executive looked at how the work of education appeal committees could be changed and made more transparent. There have been examples throughout the country of dissatisfaction with appointments to such committees. People have been left dissatisfied in cases in which councillors were able to turn down appeals against council decisions because they accounted for the majority of committee members.
The member makes an interesting point. I was a member of a council education appeal committee. I found it absolutely inappropriate that we were discouraged by the council from finding in favour of some of the parents who appeared before us. I was a member of the committee for only one year, because I supported some of the appeals.
Mike Pringle’s intervention illustrates some of the concerns about education appeals and the processes that are followed. These are serious issues that affect people’s lives, but some cases have been decided on a show of hands. In such instances, matters are not properly recorded and people are left feeling that their concerns have not been properly debated and addressed.
The tribunal system is a labyrinth, so there is an opportunity for us to take a more co-ordinated approach. As the cabinet secretary said, greater co-ordination will provide us with an opportunity to save money as well as to produce a more effective system.
A number of members spoke about the importance of devising a user-friendly system. Many people who come into contact with tribunals find them quite intimidating. We need to ensure that there is a more relaxed and informal system—not such that the processes do not deal robustly with the issues in hand, but such that people do not feel intimidated when they appear before tribunals.
All the issues that I have raised illustrate the need for reform. In England and Wales, where there has been reform, the establishment of the dedicated Tribunals Service has brought advantages in the provision of information to tribunal users, better and more specialised management of tribunals, publication of the documents that are used in tribunals, and the provision of schedules, so that the process is more transparent and people are aware of how it works.
Many members have spoken about the five options that the AJSG has brought forward, which have been well covered during the debate. The options range from the status quo to better integration, and on to option 5, which most members seemed to favour; option 5 is a dedicated Scottish tribunals service to support both Scottish tribunals and tribunals that are basically under the remit of UK legislation.
There are strong arguments for supporting option 5. Clearly, as I said, the number of tribunals has increased over the period of devolution. There is obviously a devolution issue as some of the tribunals cover reserved matters, but in this instance it is logical that one tribunals service should be in place to support the work of all the different tribunal bodies.
Do any issues arise from the potential for having different procedures in Scotland from those in England on reserved tribunals, such as immigration tribunals, which Anne McLaughlin mentioned? Might not some issues with regard to the different procedures that currently operate in that area be exacerbated if there are two different systems?
Robert Brown makes some reasonable points. That is why the Labour amendment calls for proper consultation on the changes.
I support the pilot that the cabinet secretary announced in his speech, which will deal with five tribunals. That is only a small portion of the 40 tribunals. I understand that we have to deal with such matters in phases, but as we move through the process consultation needs to take place with the various users of tribunals and organisations that support them greatly, such as trade unions and citizens advice bureaux. That would allow us to deal with the issues that Robert Brown raises.
I believe that I still have time, Presiding Officer, so I will give my thoughts on some of the reasonable points that were made in the debate. As I said, I support the cabinet secretary’s announcement. He made a valid point about the potential savings that can be made by going down this route. Obviously, that is particularly relevant as we move forward to a financial situation in which money will be tight and the challenge will be to identify areas in all budgets, not only the justice budget, in which money can be saved. The proposal is a potential winner, in that it is a way to save money and produce a more effective service.
Robert Brown made a valid point about the children’s hearings system. I understand that the system is not covered by the tribunals process, but it is relevant in the sense that our children’s hearings panels have operated very effectively—Mike Pringle told us that, unfortunately, there are 43,000 children’s hearings each year—and the Scottish system is seen by many as the jewel in the crown. I know that the system is under review, but as we move forward we do not want to change things that operate in a satisfactory manner; we need to bear that in mind.
Dave Thompson made valid points about how complaints are initiated and how we need to make the process more user friendly. Many people who come into contact with the tribunal system find it to be a minefield. They find it very difficult and it is incumbent upon us to make the process more user friendly.
Cathie Craigie, in an excellent speech, highlighted the work of the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth unemployed workers centre and how it gives a voice to those who need to use tribunals. Through that, she also highlighted the need for consultation.
Nigel Don, drawing on his experience of considering the Damages (Scotland) Bill on the Justice Committee, highlighted the importance of access to justice.
In a thought-provoking speech, Stewart Maxwell built on the idea of supporting a tribunals service to save money by arguing that the model could be applied throughout the public sector. That is a much bigger debate that will take place across the Scottish political system. It will be interesting to see whether he advances some of his ideas at the forthcoming Scottish National Party conference.
Bill Butler commented on the need for a less adversarial approach. I am sure that everyone would agree with that.
In a good-natured attempt to break the consensus, Anne McLaughlin, along with Dave Thompson, mentioned independence. She also spoke seriously about the fact that there was too much bureaucracy in tribunals and that we need to try to reduce it.
Mike Pringle made an excellent point on how we could make the process of complaining to ombudsmen more effective and user friendly.
Bill Aitken, the convener of the Justice Committee, brought all his experience to bear in his speech as ever. He particularly brought out the fact that we need to be aware of what is happening with the Gill review. There is an element of crossover between the work that is taking place on tribunals and that review. I am sure that the ministerial team is aware of that and does not want any duplication.
The debate has been useful and there were a number of interesting speeches. We support the Government motion and welcome the Government’s indication that it will support the Labour amendment’s call for more consultation. The issues that the steering group identified in the Philip report and which were identified in the debate will be taken forward constructively, and I hope that that will help the many users of tribunals throughout Scotland.
16:42
I am delighted to participate in the debate and we were delighted to hear the cabinet secretary’s announcement of the establishment of a Scottish tribunals service on 1 December. It was gratifying to see that that announcement, which will be good for Scotland, was made with the support and co-operation of the Lord Chancellor, Minister for Justice and fellow jazz lover, Ken Clarke. We are pleased that the respect agenda continues in that regard.
The service will initially bring together into one organisation the administrative support for five devolved tribunals. The cabinet secretary identified them in his opening speech. They are: the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland, the private rented housing panel, the Pensions Appeal Tribunals for Scotland and the Scottish charity appeals panel.
The debate has been so wide ranging that one sometimes felt that the speeches strayed over the boundary of relevance, in cricketing parlance. Throughout it, we heard experiences from members’ working lives in education appeals, which Mr Pringle mentioned, children’s hearings, which various members mentioned, and constituency work, which a great many members mentioned. That gave us the picture of a huge amount of important work, about which we hear little, being carried out in tribunals.
We also debate tribunals little in comparison with the Scottish Court Service, which we debate all the time. This debate has provided an opportunity for members to give their points of view, and I am grateful to them for so doing. Bringing together the Scottish tribunals service will create considerable benefits for Scotland.
Will the minister comment on the point that was implicit in various contributions to the debate, about the sheer number of tribunal cases? Would it be worth having a more detailed study of ways in which the number of cases might be reduced, for example by better mediation at an earlier stage, which might sort out cases more effectively, more satisfactorily and at less cost?
I entirely agree, and I had planned to expand and expatiate on that important issue later in my speech. Approximately 50,000 cases a year go to tribunal, and 42 tribunals operate in Scotland. Some tribunals, such as the mental health tribunals, handle a huge number of cases; others hear very few. The Scottish charity appeals panel has been asked to intervene either once or not at all. There is huge variance.
Mr Brown’s point is absolutely right—I may as well deal with it now, since he has raised it. The Scottish Government has been doing considerable work to support mediation. We give financial support to the Scottish Mediation Network. We believe that it is better to try to avoid going to court. As a former solicitor, Mr Brown, like me, will remember that too often the main gainers in court actions are the solicitors rather than the clients, irrespective of the outcome. It is a sad fact of litigation that if there are two parties only one can win, and often both of them feel that they have lost. Even if one of them has been the nominal victor, the costs of pursuing litigation are extremely high, particularly for more serious matters.
Even a minor matter in a summary case can lead to huge expenses on either side, out of all proportion to the original prospect. I read of a case—in the papers, so one does not know whether it is entirely true—of a lady who was sequestrated and had incurred legal costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds for a disputed factorial bill of a couple of hundred pounds. Most people know that pursuing litigation for such matters is not sensible. What most people perhaps do not appreciate is just how emotionally draining and taxing it is to be involved in a litigation.
I agree entirely with Robert Brown. A huge amount of work has been going on to support mediation. The same applies to arbitration, which was mentioned by several members. In the past few days I have attended a meeting with those who are involved in arbitration, with a view to implementing yet another of our manifesto pledges—in addition to 77 out of a total of 94—namely, the establishment of a Scottish arbitration centre. Seventy-seven out of 94 ain’t bad, and is a record that I wish I had achieved in my examination results at school. We want to establish a Scottish arbitration centre partly because we believe that it will facilitate faster solutions to people who have disputes. We believe that it is right that they should do so. It is an extremely serious point.
It has been an extremely general debate, so if other comments are considered relevant then this one must be relevant, too. I hope so.
Given the minister’s enthusiasm for mediation and arbitration, will he indicate whether his Government is whole-heartedly behind my Property Factors (Scotland) Bill, which I hope would give people such as the lady he mentioned the opportunity to settle her difficulties more accessibly and comfortably than by going to court?
I am not sure about the precise detail of the proposal in Ms Ferguson’s bill, but in general and in principle, we support alternative dispute resolution and believe that people should pursue every reasonable option to try to resolve differences without going to a tribunal or a court. That is just an extension of common sense. We have various other measures, but time probably does not permit me to go into them, so I will move swiftly on.
We believe that the Scottish tribunals service will create a more efficient and effective administration that will be able to use its scale to make better use of resources. As the cabinet secretary said, it will begin to tackle the fragmentation of the tribunals—a point that many members made during the debate. We are working towards all tribunals in Scotland being part of a coherent Scottish justice system that is administered in Scotland. Indeed, there is a timetable for the achievement of that, which brings us up to around 2015, by which time we hope to see the Scottish tribunals service include all tribunals; that is the aim.
Many members, principally Mr Robert Brown, referred to the role of tribunals that deal with reserved areas, one of which is, of course, industrial tribunals. Employment law is substantially reserved to Westminster. It is an area in which I had some practice, although unfortunately for me I was usually up against Mr Brown’s partner, Rod McKenzie, or Raymond Williamson, who are avowed experts in employment law, and I thereby secured defeat for my unfortunate clients. I did have some success on other occasions.
It is striking that in employment tribunals claims have to be made within a short time; three months is the cut-off point for unfair dismissal claims. There is then a very quick process of getting a day in court. The dates are assigned through a commonsense process so that, within a reasonable amount of time after someone loses their job, they get their day in court. In most cases, they do not have to go through an overly complex, endless and byzantine process of adjusting pleadings—as one has to do in the civil courts, which can go on for years. They have to go through a fairly rapid process to get to the hearing for their dispute. We should value that and praise all those who work in our tribunal system for achieving it.
Mr Brown referred to complex cases, and there are many that might well go on to the employment appeal tribunal or even further, but that is relatively infrequent. By and large, in comparing and contrasting the employment tribunals with the civil court system, my experience is that the employment tribunal was a far less stressful and more satisfactory experience for clients. That is merely my experience, and it might not be wholly accurate, but it is a tribute to the Scottish tribunal system and all who work in it that we have such a good system. Because we have responsibility for the area, I decided to meet those who head our employment tribunals in Scotland. I met Shona Simon, the president of employment tribunals in Scotland, and Susan Walker, who is the vice-president.
There are a great many issues of huge importance, some of which have been raised today by Cathie Craigie, who covered her constituents’ many concerns in her remarks about the difficulties that constituents have in accessing tribunals. In response to some of Cathie Craigie’s points, and those of other members, I say that an element of legal advice and assistance is provided in the preparation of cases that are going to tribunal under the advice and assistance scheme, and the assistance by way of representation—ABWOR—scheme. I have the figures with me, but I do not want to bore members in the chamber so I will not read them out.
You still have six minutes to go.
Why change the habit of a lifetime?
I do not like to disappoint, Presiding Officer, and some remarks are being made off-stage; unfortunately, I cannot hear them. I reassure members that there is an element of publicly funded assistance for the preparation of cases going to tribunal. It is important because getting the facts right and presenting them coherently is the basic requirement for success in any case.
I am grateful to the minister for allowing me back in, and that he is showing that he is taking seriously the concerns that I have raised. I accept that there is an element of support for preparing for a tribunal but, as I understand it, that support would come through a lawyer. Many people, including many of my constituents, go to voluntary organisations that have established expertise. How can they access financial support of that sort?
I am grateful to Cathie Craigie for making that point, as it brings me neatly to the next segment of my speech—although I note, Presiding Officer, that we are running out of time. [Laughter.] Cathie Craigie is absolutely right. She mentioned citizens advice bureaux earlier—as have other members—which do an excellent job in helping people to prepare cases before tribunals.
In my intervention, which Cathie Craigie kindly took during her speech, I alluded to my and my party’s concern that there will be a considerable growth in the number of appeals against the refusal of employment support allowance throughout Scotland. When I visited the Nairn and Inverness citizens advice bureaux, I was told that there are already a huge number of such appeals. I place on record our worry that there will be very serious consequences if there are reforms to benefits whereby people on low levels of benefit have them removed. The appeals system is under great strain at the moment, which I believe is because of difficulties in dealing with the private company that has the responsibility for dealing with medical evidence. I suspect that those matters will become issues of great political controversy in quite a short time, should the UK go ahead with its avowed intention further to reform and make difficult the availability of benefits.
I want to provide some relief to Cathie Craigie by reassuring her that, in addition to the measures to which I have just alluded, which I am sure she will welcome, we will in the stage 3 debate next week on the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which I know has cross-party support, propose a number of measures that specifically address the points that she has raised. For example, if the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is passed, citizens advice bureaux will be able to employ solicitors for the first time. They cannot do that at the moment, but they will be able to assist Cathie Craigie’s constituents further—
Order. There are some very loud conversations taking place around the chamber. I would be grateful if they could be muted.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid, to whose conference I spoke but a few weeks ago, will be able to employ a solicitor if the Parliament passes the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill next week. That means that they will be better able to deal with the hugely important and sensitive task of obtaining matrimonial interdicts for females who are the victims of violence. The bill will be of assistance to them, too.
I can further reassure Cathie Craigie, who raised the topic, that if the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is passed next week, we will have the benefits of section 96, which will place a new duty on the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It will not just be a passive body that dishes out legal aid on application and administers it prudently, but will have a duty proactively to monitor the availability of legal aid throughout Scotland.
If the Parliament passes the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill next week, all those points—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Most certainly.
I thank the minister for the trailer for next week’s business. I am sure that the chamber will be absolutely stowed next Wednesday afternoon, given the interest in the bill.
I am looking for information regarding voluntary organisations that might not have the resources to employ solicitors. I accept what the minister is saying about the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, and I welcome the aspects of it that the minister has been discussing, but we are talking about tribunals. How can we get some resources to the voluntary groups that represent the minister’s constituents and mine at tribunals up and down Scotland?
Disappointingly, the minister must wind up now.
I know that the chamber will be agog next week during stage 3 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill and I do enjoy speaking to a full house, but I can reassure Cathie Craigie that this Government has been very generous to those voluntary organisations, as Mr Neil can testify, because he has provided considerable support to those bodies, which do an excellent job throughout Scotland.
I thank all members for what has been a highly stimulating debate.