MSPs concerned at bill's burden on judges

Justice Committee warns of administrative overload under Judiciary Bill

News, 5 May 2008

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee is concerned that senior judges may face excessive administrative demands under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill.

In its stage 1 report on the bill, the committee recommends that the parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill, but expresses reservations about the administrative and organisational responsibilities being placed on the Lord President. The report also queries the proposal regarding direct authority for the Scottish Court Service being taken away from Scottish Ministers.

Committee convener Bill Aitken MSP said that the committee was unable to support the bill’s provisions wholeheartedly, though it was content with the general principles. "There are concerns about the administrative burden that could fall to the Lord President and indeed, given the powers of delegation, to other judges.

“The committee noted and agreed with the Lord President’s view that sitting on the most important cases was his priority. Nevertheless, the committee remains concerned that there has not been an entirely independent assessment of the impact that the bill might have on judicial time, and for that reason we seek further discussion around this issue."

Mr Aitken confirmed that the committee welcomed many aspects of the bill, including the fact that it contained, for the first time in Scotland, a statutory guarantee of judicial independence. "This is important symbolically and sends out the right message." The committee also welcomed putting the Judicial Appointments Board on a statutory footing.

The Justice Committee has asked the Scottish Government to provide independent quantifiable evidence about the impact the bill’s proposals could have on judicial time. It remains unconvinced that a sufficient case has been made to remove the Scottish Court Service from the direct authority of Scottish Ministers. Further, the committee unanimously believes that there should be a mandatory requirement for judges to undertake training.