 The next item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion number 11078 in the name of David Stewart on petition PE1458, register of interest for members of Scotland's judiciary. Can I invite members who wish to speak in a debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please? I call on David Stewart to speak to it and move the motion on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee. Mr Stewart, 10 minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. A few short years ago, this Parliament sent me to Johannesburg in South Africa to address a major conference on the role of public petitions. After I addressed the conference, a young American professor took the stage. He told the story of President Kennedy visiting the space agency NASA. During the tour, he talked to an elderly cleaner who was washing the canteen floor. The cleaner told the president that he had worked for NASA since its inception in 1958, and that his job was to put a man on the moon. The Petitions Committee does not aspire to put a man on the moon but to be a window of the Parliament, to be accessible, to go the extra mile for each and every petitioner. Of course, Presiding Officer, there is no magic wand, but we acknowledge that we have had successful petitions on cancer drugs, on pain relief and on mesh devices. I welcome the opportunity given to the committee to highlight to Parliament today the issues raised by Peter Chirby in his petition seeking a register of interests for Scotland's judiciary. I like to put on record my thanks to all committee members and to all who have provided evidence. Mr Chirby petitioned the Parliament, seeking the creation of a register of pocuni interests of judges' bill. His petition was brought to the Parliament at the end of 2012, and since then, the committee has been listening to the arguments in favour and against. At the onset, I should say that part of Mr Chirby's motivation in bringing this issue to the Scottish Parliament was the consideration in New Zealand of a member's bill by Dr Kennedy Graham of the New Zealand Green Party. I understand that the member's bill had the origins in the resignation of a former New Zealand Supreme Court judge who was accused of misconduct for allegedly failing to disclose a large debt that he apparently owed to a lawyer appearing in a case before him. The committee's motivation in giving consideration to this issue and seeking time in this chamber to debate is on a point of principle and from a starting point of an assumption of openness and transparency in all areas of public life. If you like to shine the light in every corner of Scottish society, the petitioner said that the catalyst for his petition was investigations by the Scottish media into members in the judiciary here. The petitioner told the committee that the media investigations have revealed a number of criminal charges and convictions. The petitioner points out that there is a greater public expectation now in terms of transparency and accountability across all branches of public life and that the judiciary has a duty to be accountable to the wider community and that it should be expected to hear to the same standards as those that apply to others in public life such as MSPs, Ministers and MPs. This Parliament prides itself on being open and accessible. That was one of the cornerstones of this institution that was developed by our founding fathers from the work of the Constitutional Convention. We on the Public Petitions Committee seek to champion that approach across all areas of public life in Scotland. I personally support an independent judiciary. I believe that that is a crucial element in the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. The committee's motivation and concern in the petition was not in any way about interfering with judicial independence but rather it is about reflecting on whether reasonable modern-day public expectations with regard to transparency have been met. For example, prior to the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009, the High Court was the pellet committee of the House of Lords. The law laws were bound by the House of Lords disclosure rules where financial interests were declared, so there is a precedent. For the most part, Scotland and its institutions have a good track record of openness and accessibility. In exercising its scrutiny function, this Parliament has worked to bring about improvements in those areas. However, having a good track record, it is not sufficient reason to say that we should never stop and think about what has been done and how it can be approved upon. We contacted Dr Graham in New Zealand about his bill. He told us that the judiciary there were not overtly enamoured at the suggestion of a register of interests. I think that it is a fair assessment of the position here to say that that is probably true of Scotland as well as far as the judiciary are concerned. Dr Graham also told us that the chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal testified before the select committee on the bill. As members will be well aware, the Public Petitions Committee invited Lord Gill, the head of Scotland's judiciary, to come and give evidence to the committee. Lord Gill declined to attend the meeting of the committee. Of course, that is prerogative, but the committee is on record as expressing disappointment and not being able to hear from Lord Gill in person at one of its formal meetings. However, I and Deputy convener Chick Brody did meet Lord Gill informally here at the Parliament to discuss the petition and that was useful. When the committee first sought views of what the petition seeks, we were told by the judiciary and the Scottish Government that the existing safeguards in place were sufficient. The existing safeguards are as follows. First of all, the judicial oath, which must be taken by all judicial office holders who require them, and I quote, to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Secondly, the statement of principles of judicial ethics for the Scottish judiciary was published in 2010 and updated in 2013, which provides guidance for judges and draws attention to particular areas of potential sensitivity. The third safeguard that we are directed to is the Judiciary and Court Scotland Act 2008. The act contains provisions to regulate and investigate the contact of judicial office holders and rules for dealing with complaints about the self-said judicial office holders. The petitioners argued that there is no statistical or analytical information available or made available in terms of recordings about whether and how frequently declarations of interest are made. I will touch on that later in my speech. I would like to turn to some of the evidence that was received from Mo Alley, who at the time was the judicial complaints reviewer. I role-created by the Scottish Government to review the handling of complaint investigations by the judicial officers of Scotland and to members of the judiciary to ensure that complaints have been dealt with fairly. I know that Ms Alley has moved on and I wish her well in her current and future roles, and I would like to put it on record that the evidence that she provided to the committee, both written and in person, was well thought through and thought-provoking. Ms Alley made it clear in her role as a judicial complaints reviewer. She supported what the petition called for. Her view was that a register of interests would increase the transparency of the judiciary and contribute to public confidence in their actions and decisions. I quote again, transparency tends to increase trust. Lack of transparency is more likely to create suspicion. That is quite a simple statement, but one in many ways goes to the heart of the issues that we come up during our consideration of the petition. In her view, the judiciary should not be outflying what was required of others who hold high public office. She told us that she dealt with a complaint concerning a judge who had allegedly used the judicial position to promote a body that was alleged to have breached international law. In another case, she dealt with a complaint about a sheriff who allegedly precipitated in a social function organised by a lawyer who had appeared before him at an earlier proof hearing. We did not receive any information about complaints that were received or considered from the judiciary. A judicial office holder will recruse or decline to hear the case in situations where it has felt that there is a potential conflict of interest. Up until recently, there has been no published information about when and what circumstances recrusals were taking place. I am pleased to report that, after the committee's interest, I raised the issue of the recording of recrusals directly with the Lord President. Lord Grill has agreed now to ensure that information recrusals would be publicly available. From April this year, all incidents of recrusals and the reasons for them have been published in the judicial website. Fourteen such incidents have been notified, and the move to make more information available is very welcome. For example, in April 2014, at Forfer Sheriff Court, Sheriff Veil personally knew a witness and quite correctly recused himself. However, I am aware that some feel that this does not go far enough. The published information relates to those incidents is where a judicial office holder has been recused. What about incidents no matter how rare a judicial office holder is not willing to recruse, despite having received representation? I am not that clear where someone could get this information. Is it recorded? Is it available publicly? If not, is there a reason for it not being available? I understand from the judicial complaints review that the complaints that she saw were more about a failure to recuse and not about the lack of information on the recrusals that did take place. Another question that arises is what recourse does someone have when an allegation of a conflict of interest comes to light after a court case has been heard? Is there no means by which someone is able to check in advance as to whether there is a potential for any conflict of interest that is liked in a sense to a grievance that something comes to light after the event, after a court case has been heard and decided? Could a register of interest avert the need for such complaints by enabling people to make an informed decision to challenge any perception or allegation of conflict of interest at a time rather than after the case has been decided? On the other hand, a concern of the Lord President is that the introduction of a register of interest could have unintended consequences and the consideration must be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment by aggressive media or hostile individuals. Of course, that is right, but would a register of interest increase the risks that judicial office holders face in that regard? I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. I hope that I have managed to set out in this speech some of the questions that I think could be useful for us to reflect on. In the end, I understand that the New Zealand Bill was ultimately withdrawn on the basis that a grievance reached to improve the rules on the causes and conflicts of interest. I am pleased that a grievance reached there and on the issues that were discussed openly. I therefore welcome this opportunity to debate the issues raised in the petition and I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues in the chamber this afternoon. Presiding Officer, I move the motion in my name. I now call on Rosanna Cunningham, Minister of Justice, to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today's debate provides an opportunity to consider issues related to a register of interest for the judiciary that was discussed by the Public Petitions Committee over recent months as outlined by the convener, David Stewart. Of course, it is of vital importance that judges are seen to be both independent and impartial. They must be free from prejudice by association or relationship with one of the parties to a litigation. They must be able to demonstrate impartiality by having no vested interests such as a pecuniary interest or indeed a familial interest that could affect them in exercising their judicial functions. The petition is originally lodged, as I understand it, only concerned a register of pecuniary interests for the judiciary. It called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a register of pecuniary interests of judges bill, as was then being considered in New Zealand's Parliament, or amend present legislation to require all members of the judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests and hospitality received to a publicly available register of interests. Of course, that is a narrower definition of the register than the convener has been talking about this afternoon. The Scottish Government considers that it is not necessary to establish a register of judicial interests. It is our view that the safeguards currently in place are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland. Those important safeguards are the judicial oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics issued by the Judicial Office for Scotland in 2010 and the Judiciary in Court Scotland Act 2008. If I could look at those three safeguards in a little more detail, the judicial oath, taken by all judicial office holders before they sit on the bench, requires judges to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will. The statement of principle of judicial ethics states at principle 5 that all judicial office holders have a general duty to act impartially. In particular, it notes and I quote, plainly it is not acceptable for a judge to adjudicate upon any matter in which he or she or any members of his or her family has a pecuniary interest. Furthermore, he or she should carefully consider whether any litigation depending before him or her may involve the decision of a point of law that itself may affect his or her personal interest in some different context or that of a member of his or her family. The Judiciary in Court Scotland Act 2008 contains provisions to regulate and investigate the conduct of judicial office holders. Under section 28, the Lord President has a prior to make rules for the investigation of any matter concerning the conduct of judicial office holders. The complaints about the judiciary Scotland rules came into force in 2011. There was a consultation on those rules last autumn. The Lord President has considered responses to the consultation and new rules and accompanying guidance will be published in due course. In addition to that, in reaching the conclusion that the introduction of a register of judicial interests would not be appropriate at this time, did the Scottish Government consider and evaluate the Council of Europe group of states against corruption report, which looks specifically at this matter, and did that help to inform the Scottish Government's thinking? Yes, we have looked at that and I am in fact going to refer to that just in one or two moments, if I have the time. In addition to that, members will be aware that, from 1 April 2014, the Scottish Court service has set up a public register of judicial recusals, and the convener did mention that. That register sets out the reason why a member of the judiciary has recused him or herself from hearing a case where there is a conflict of interest. Although that does not go as far as the petition suggested, we believe that it is a welcome addition to the safeguards that I have already covered. Setting up a register of judicial interests would be a matter for the Lord President as head of the judiciary in Scotland. The Lord President takes the view that a register of pecuniary interests for the judiciary is not needed. Furthermore, the judge has a greater duty of disclosure than a register of financial interests could address. The statement of judicial ethics that I have just—I do want to make some progress. The statement of judicial ethics that I have just referred to says that a judge's disclosure duties extend to material relationships. In his written evidence to the Public Petitions Committee, the Lord President referred to the findings of the Council of Europe group of states against corruption. The Greco report 2013, following the fourth evaluation report of the United Kingdom, found that, I quote, nothing emerged during the current evaluation, which could indicate that there is any element of corruption in relation to judges, nor is there evidence of judicial decisions being influenced in an inappropriate manner. Greco therefore did not recommend the introduction of a register of judicial interests. That suggests that the current safeguards are indeed sufficient and that there is no obvious issue which the register would solve. The position is, of course, different for MSPs and members of other parliaments. We are directly accountable to our constituents and are required to register our interests. Greco also considered issues regarding the prevention of corruption in relation to members of parliaments across the United Kingdom, and he recommended that it is essential that the public continues to be made aware of the steps taken and the tools developed to reinforce the ethos of parliamentary integrity to increase transparency and to institute real accountability. If the member would permit me to move on, I do want to get through that. I am aware that the petition was related to the register of pecuniary interests of judges' bill in the New Zealand Parliament, which was considered earlier this year by the Justice and Electoral Committee. As the convener indicated in his opening comment, the bill did not proceed. The committee, as I understand it, recommended that the bill should not be passed. Following the report, the sponsoring member intended to withdraw the bill. It is also the case that there is no equivalent register in other parts of the United Kingdom. As I have said, we do not think that it is necessary to establish such a register. The case has not been made that the existing safeguards are not effective. I can only assume that members agree with this. As we completed stage 3 of the courts reform bill yesterday, that would be Tuesday. That bill could have been used as a vehicle for legislating for the introduction of a register of judicial interests. I am surprised that, if members are exercised by the issue that an amendment to this effect was not submitted during consideration of the bill. However, today is an opportunity for a wider consideration of this issue, and I look forward to hearing what others have to say. I will come back to some of the issues in my closing remarks. I indicate at this point that I have a bit of time in hand if members wish to take interventions, but of course it is entirely up to them. If I can make some general comments before addressing some of the key issues within the motion, we persistently discuss the need to deliver a fair, just and transparent system of not only government but public law and administration. In that context, I welcome the petition supplied by Peter Cherby to the Public Petitions Committee. I also commend David Stewart and the members of the committee for taking seriously the content of the petition and recommending that we discuss it here in the public chamber. It raises issues that cause concern in the world generally and can cause concern to some of our constituents. Many of us will have received comments from constituents displaying their reservations in connection with their dealings with the courts and sometimes raising issues. Further, I welcome the opportunity to publicly celebrate the integrity of our judiciary. My involvement with the judiciary over the years has been one that has impressed me with the nature of the work that it does and the solemnity with which it approaches its very difficult tasks. That has not been said. My alley, as was referred to earlier by the judicial complaints reviewer, had fairly strident comments to make in connection with her work and she indicated that she felt that she had no power to make things different and better. I think that it is worthwhile as thinking for a moment that it is not always the case that this chamber should seek to deal with problems that are identified but sometimes it is our duty to deal with the perceptions of a problem in order that we can be sure that, in the years ahead, we demonstrate the fairness and transparency of all that we try to achieve on behalf of the citizens. Lord Gill indicates that, from his viewpoint, he saw no point in introducing such a register and that he relied on judges being able to recuse himself or herself in circumstances where they identified some form of perceived bias or the reality of a bias being demonstrated that a judge would, in those circumstances, recuse himself. That places an extreme pressure on a judge to examine their soul before the commencement of proceedings and to consider all possible circumstances before that process begins. Until that petition was discussed, there was no knowledge in the public domain of recusals registered. I welcome the fact that the Lord President has introduced such a process as of April this year and I think that it is fair to say that, without the petition and the work of the petitions committee, it probably would not have been a stage that had been considered previously. I am happy to do that. I wonder whether the member might agree with me that the welcome edition of the recusals register will help us in future to understand the nature and scope of the ways in which judges have to stand down. I suspect that it might show us that financial considerations might be the least of it, but that is speculation until we see the results merely a personal opinion. I am sure that Mr Stevenson is right in his viewpoint, as he has expressed there, that I doubt that financial considerations will figure, because all too often, certainly in the media and in the contents of postbags, are perceptions of belonging to groups and various associations. I will not seek to indicate which groups and associations, because it merely creates heat instead of light. Nevertheless, it is that perception that those on the bench are, in some way, influenced by their various connections that create the concern among the general public and some elements of the press. My approach to those things, and it always has been, is that sometimes, even though you use an element of your own privacy, it is better to be upfront in those matters and to record those things within a register. I understand the threat that may attach to that in terms of the pressures that judges could face in the future. I wonder if there is a way, once we give some thought to it, that we could create a register that would not be used by those who would be vexatious to attack or to pursue our judiciary, but at the same time give us confidence that our courts for the future operate to the best outcome. At that point, I will close my presentation but I will look forward to hearing what other members have to say in the subject. I have found that a particularly difficult debate to prepare for, and so much so that I have come with nothing to say. I thought that I would listen carefully to the arguments that were being presented and then comment. I want to deal with it in two ways. The issue at hand in the petition and the way, in fact, I think that the Lord President responded to the issues raised in the petition. With regard to the petition itself, I always thought that it was a rather curious petition, based as it was on something that might be going to happen in New Zealand. I was never altogether entirely impressed with it, but I thought that, since the issue had been raised, it was perfectly appropriate for the Petitions Committee to seek to find out what the response of the Scottish Government and the Lord President would be. Amongst my parliamentary colleagues, I should say without naming anyone that I have been told quite clearly that we do not want any of that, but let me see. I think that the minister identified quite ably why, in fact, we should have confidence in the current process and why I am not persuaded that we do actually need a register of interests. There is the judicial oath, there is the statement of principle and judicial ethics, there is the judiciary in court Scotland act of 2008. Either we take the view that we are appointing and have confidence in the judges that we appoint or we do not. I believe that we should, and I think that Graham Simpson started to hit on the point that what we do not want is to find the whole process of law within the court system being delayed because issues are being raised as to whether or not the judge has an interest that might be regarded as being one that means they ought to be accusing themselves from the trial and the whole thing becomes bogged down. So I am not persuaded of the issue, but I have to say that I thought that the whole way that the petition then developed was less than satisfactory. We did hear from Mojela, and I want to quote what she said. She said that she did not know why there was not a register, but it has long been the case in this country that particular groups are harder to challenge. In the past, one such group was the medical profession. I had a look at the website of the general medical council, the regulator of doctors, and although I think that it would have resisted this strongly in the past, it now publishes registered of interests, records, family relationships of its council members and so on. At one time it was difficult for politicians to take on that group. It is perhaps difficult to take on the judiciary because judicial independence has always mentioned. As I said, that is a cornerstone of democracy, but because there has been no separation of accountability and independence, it is easy for the judiciary to say, we are independent, so do not interfere with that. Unless independence and accountability are separated, legislation will continue to include no requirement for more openness and transparency. I thought that that was quite a powerful argument, and I have to say that the response of the Lord President was essentially to say, get your tanks off my lawn. It was all very well to send a written response in, but I thought that if we were going to explore the issues that the petitioner raised effectively and, in fact, to give weight to the arguments that the Lord President was making, the best way to do that would be for him to have his argument tested with the involvement of the committee. I have to say in briefing that I have heard from the Law Society of Scotland that they do not think that the Petitions Committee of this Parliament is a grand enough committee for the Lord President to have to command his attention. If it was a subject committee like the Justice Committee, fair enough, but all manner of petitions could come forward and the Lord President would have to present himself. That is not the way in which the Petitions Committee conducts itself at all. We thought that there was a serious argument here that ought to be examined, and in the language that I employ devoid of any colour, I did myself say that it gave the impression that the Lord President was part of an Edwardian establishment disdain for the right of the Hoy Palloy, as he sees it, to have any understanding of such matters, and that there was a swish of judicial ermine and velvet that should cow in to deference the public and the legislator in relation to our right to understand the issues. That was what I think many in the committee of my colleagues, I will speak for themselves, found slightly unsettling and unacceptable. If we are going to ensure that when petitions are raised, as Graham Pearson said, raising a perception of a problem, where, in fact, as the minister has articulated, there is a very cogent argument that would suggest that there is no need for further action, I think that the best way is not to suggest private meetings off the record with members of the committee to explore issues within a limited mandate and framework, but that the appropriate way to have done it would have been for the Lord President to come and, in a responsible environment, place his case on the record, allow us to have tested it and then, I think, quite in all likelihood have agreed with the principle that he had articulated and thereby have advocated why we thought that was the right approach. We weren't able to do that and that's why we're having the debate today. I think that it illustrated that you cannot simply, in the modern age, say that we are part of something that is independent, that we are not accountable to the Parliament for these matters and therefore there is no need for us to make a public defence of our argument. I don't have a problem with the position, I have a big problem with the way that we have got to the point that we're at today. Thank you very much. We now turn to the open debate, speeches of four minutes but I have a little bit of time in hand for interventions. Angus MacDonald, to be followed by Ann McTarget. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I certainly welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and not least the opportunity to congratulate the petitioner, Peter Cherby, on being bold enough to bring this petition to the Petitions Committee. There aren't many who are willing to take on the might of the judiciary. As we've heard, the petition calls for all members of Scotland's judiciary to be subject to a full and publicly available register of interests, and the proposal envisages the creation of a single, independently regulated, publicly available source containing current information on judges' backgrounds, their financial interests, details of recusals, etc., and any other information that is routinely lodged in registers of interests across all walks of public life in the UK and further afield. Given that we, as elected members and legislators, are expected and obliged to declare our interests, I personally do not see why members of Scotland's judiciary should be treated any differently. During our deliberations, the committee learned of a, as we've heard, similar proposal in New Zealand, as the convener has mentioned. A member's bill, sponsored by Green MP Dr Kennedy Graham, was proceeding through the parliamentary process as we were deliberating this petition. However, I believe that, as has already been mentioned, the bill was subsequently withdrawn following an agreement with members of the House of Representatives and the New Zealand Government. Dr Graham has explained to the committee that the motivation for the bill was to seek to ensure that judges are assisted through institutional means rather than relying purely on personal direction and judgment in determining whether they should handle a case or not. The intention of the bill was to protect them from accusations or insinuations that their judgment was poor. In addition, it was planned that the bill would promote confidence in the judiciary, especially if it shows that the judicial system, particularly in Scotland, is above reproach. Any member of the public watching this debate this afternoon, would be entitled to ask what on earth is wrong with that, and as I've already mentioned, I'm inclined to agree with them. However, it's fair to say that the judiciary is not exactly keen on the idea of such a register. At this point, Presiding Officer, can I join with other members of the committee to put on record my disappointment as the committee did as a whole at the lack of engagement between the full Petitions Committee and the Lord President, Lord Gill? In the spirit of openness and transparency, which we so rightly hold with high regard in this place, it was clearly a snub to the committee when Lord Gill refused to appear in public in front of it. If it is to be resisted by the judiciary, it must be borne in mind that nothing undermines public confidence in a nation's institutions and procedures more than a suspicion that a public servant may have suffered a conflict of interest arising from, for example, a financial engagement in a particular dealing in which one was professionally involved. I'm clearly not suggesting that anything untoward has gone on anywhere, but surely to ensure that no such suggestions can ever be laid in the future, I feel that we must look at having a system that gives a general public peace of mind. Clearly and thankfully, accusations of bias are rare, however situations of perceived bias are not unknown. However, I have to stress in response to Jackson Carlaw's comments that it's not a matter of not having confidence in the judiciary, it's a matter of making sure that everything is above board. I also note the minister's comments that she believes that current safeguards are sufficient in our observation that there were no amendments on Tuesday, however, as it is a decision for Lord Gill, it shouldn't require an amendment to the bill. If we, as elected members, have to register and declare our interests, then I see no reason why members of Scotland's judiciary should not be subjected to a full and publicly available register of judicial interests. I once again congratulate Peter Cherby on bringing this situation to the attention of the Parliament and I hope that the Scottish Government and the Lord President will reconsider taking the suggestions of the petitioner on board, which I believe would help to lay concerns of the wider public in Scotland. I believe that one of the fundamental values of the Scottish Parliament is transparency in government for the benefit of the Scottish people. This petition is an important step towards upholding that simple value honesty. At its core, what the petition calls for is the creation of a register of interests for members of the judiciary in order to ensure fairness in our courts. With the register, when cases are being brought to the court, potential biases can be immediately identified and the potential for a conflict of interest is entirely avoided. The result of the process is simple, fairer and more transparent, where the concern of possible bias is not a concern. Although that is a petition that I fully support, we cannot ignore the need for appropriate checks and balances in order to protect that personal information from being used for other inappropriate purposes. In addition, in seeking to protect the privacy of judicial officials, the register should not be used by a member of the public to contact a member of the judiciary. The information collected for the register is explicitly for identifying possible bias and with the goal of promoting fairness and accountability, not violating the privacy of a judge. I have always been committed to promoting transparency and accountability in government, including most recently when my colleague Neil Findlay MSP and his private member's bill on lobbying transparency was introduced in 2012. That bill, which attracted support from across the Parliament, was a great step in the direction of open government. However, over a year after the Scottish Government said that they would introduce another bill on that subject, we are still awaiting for a proposal. Just as the goal for the register of interest is not to scrutinise the judiciary but to promote fairness, the goal of the new family's bill was not to make it harder for charities to promote good causes but to increase transparency of who is lobbying parliamentary officials. Having worked in that bill when it first entered Parliament in the Public Petitions Committee, I kindly advocate for its support. It is a piece of work that promotes the simple democratic values of fairness, transparency and accountability, and Scotland claims to continue to emerge of unfair trials ranging from religious, ethnic and national bias. So long as those claims continue to exist, it is the job of this Parliament to promote a fair Government. In conclusion, I declare my support for the petition and encourage the support of all the other MSPs to do so. I now call David Torrance to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Peter Serby for submitting the petition in question and the committee clerk and team for all their work. The debate on whether to introduce a register of an interest for the judiciary in Scotland is an intriguing one. It is true that there is currently no such register and alternative arrangements are in place, which arguably compensate for this. However, it is also true that registers as one's interests is now commonplace among all high office public servers personnel and that doing so increases transparency and accountability to people we represent and serve. This is a point in which I would like to focus and the main reason that I support the petitioner's call for a register of interests to be introduced. In Scotland, we take a great pride in our legal system and the integrity of our judges and sheriffs at our Parliament. We place a great deal of trust in our judiciary and it's things like the judicial oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics and the judiciary and Court Scotland Act 2008 that help us to have a confidence that this trust is well placed. However, regardless of the level of trust that we have in the judiciary, situations can never less arise that will lead us to questions, actions of one of its members and to doubt whether they have acted appropriately in exercising their individual discretionary judgment. The committee's correspondence from the judicial complaints reviewer, Mulally, indicates that allegations of judicial bias have been made by members of the public in the past, a bit unsubstantiated. Implementing a register of interests would certainly reduce the scope for such doubt and would help to ensure a maximum public confidence in our judiciary. I am aware that every other category of public servant of high office MSPs and MPs included is required to complete a register of interests. Is that your best question why should the judiciary be treated as an exception? Exceptions tend to create suspicion, which is something that we should seek to avoid. Completing a register of interests is not an overt, arduous task and one, in my view, worth doing so to ensure transparency and accountability in our legal system. I would be surprised if there were many members of the judiciary who did not share this view. In terms of a system of request, I understand that it is currently at a discretion of individuals to decide where to recuse themselves from a case. Under these circumstances, I can appreciate that judges may be viewed as having too much autonomy over deciding when to recuse. I am pleased to learn that there is now a system in place whereby recusals made by judges are routinely recorded and that this information is now publicly available via the judiciary of Scotland website. I thank the Lord President for initiating this action. However, I understand that its development, by its widely welcome, does not go far enough to address the petitioner's concerns, as it does not disclose occasions upon which the judge decides not to recuse, despite the existence of potential conflicts of interests. Although I understand that conflicts of interests are on occasions declared in open court prior to taking on the case, the introduction of a register of interests would provide a more consistent and sound basis upon which to carry forward across the board. Ultimate priority must be to transparency and accountability to the public. Having examined the evidence provided to the committee thus far, it seems that there is a strong case for introducing a register of interests with this purpose at its heart. Considering that there is a standard requirement for all other positions of high public office, I believe that this is the right thing to do. Having said this, care must be taken to ensure that the minimum inconvenience is caused to judicial office holders in terms of time and effort that is taken to complete an update of register until any ill effects that may have to be put at risk of a by-doing so. I look forward to hearing the views of other speakers in this today's way, as it is important for us to gain as many perspectives as possible on the issue in order to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of public whilst protecting the privacy of members of our judiciary. Thank you very much. I still have a bit of time in hand at this stage, so I can give the next four members a maximum of five minutes if they wish. Neil Findlay to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Thanks, Presiding Officer. The referendum campaign that we have just had has developed a new healthy interest in all things political, and that has to be warmly welcomed. Of course, with that comes increased scrutiny of politicians, political institutions, the decision-making process and the people who make those decisions on behalf of the people. The public have every right to know what is going on in their name and to hold institutions and people to account for their actions. The institution here claims to be open and accessible and transparent in all that it does, and it claims to operate with the values of accountability, openness, power sharing and equal opportunities. It is a long way to go until it and the society and institutions that we legislate over can claim to live up to those values. If we look at the front today, we are supposed to operate with values of wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity. I think that this proposal is part of a wide range of changes that we need to see if we are to live up to those supportable aims. I fully support the proposal for a register of interest for members of the judiciary. We have the right to know whether those involved in determining whether a man or woman loses their freedom has any financial, business, social, political or other relationship that could influence any decision that they might make. Currently, there is no compulsion to declare such an interest and we rely on the fair-minded observer test, but that to me is wholly inadequate. We have, through history, heard allegations of religious class, financial and political bias or that members of certain organisations were being helpful to each other during trials. I can think of many industrial and other disputes that have gone to court where claims of bias and collusion have been made and with, I believe, justification. That has to end, so we should have a register with clear rules that leave no one in any doubt as to who and what should be registered. Is it really a surprise to people that we find that legal establishment do not want a register? Isn't it an outrage that Lord Gill had such contempt for this Parliament that he refused to attend? Does that simply make people even more suspicious of his motives? Let me give you some more examples of how our politics maintains its secrecy. I recently asked a question of a cabinet minister seeking to find out who advised him on certain key areas of policy and was told that information could not be revealed because it was providing information about a third party. We cannot, for example, find out whether people with links to the fracking industry advise the Government on energy or whether people with financial interests in the drugs industry advise the Government on new treatments. Those are very important issues. I am not saying that those people are advising them. What I am saying is that we simply do not know and cannot find out and I believe that that is fundamentally wrong. What about when the Government appoints people to conduct inquiries or write reports paid for from the public purse? Why are they picked? Is it because their experts are particularly knowledgeable in their field or are there other influencing factors as to why those people are picked? What about contracts that have been secured? How and why were they won? What about changes in Government policy? Who influenced the change in why? The public should, if they wish, have the right to know what has been done in their name. What about the workings of this Parliament? Why do our committees discuss so many issues in private sessions when there is no reason to? For example, why cannot we find out why the health committee refused to invite the former auditor general to give evidence to the budget? Who stopped him from coming and why cannot we find those things out? Surely the public have the right to know. 16 months ago, as Anne McTager mentioned, the Government said that it was minded to legislate my lobbying transparency Scotland bill, yet, to date, no legislation has come forward. Why not? Let me say to the Government that, if it is not in the legislative programme, then I will be bringing it back to this Parliament and then we can see what commitment this Parliament has to openness and accountability. In conclusion, we need to do so much more to make our society less secretive and less off a closed society. I think that this register is just one step towards that end. I, for one, will give it my full support and urge other members of Parliament to do the same. Thank you very much. I now call on Joan McAlpine to be followed by John Wilson up to five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. That is exactly the sort of matter that this Parliament should be debating. It is of testament to the committee in bringing it to the chamber. I am naturally inclined to support a register of judges' interests. I understand the need to enshrine the independence of the judiciary and I understand Lord Gill's decision to decline the committee's invitation, while I understandably drew criticism. On the other hand, one could argue that the judiciary should not be subject to political pressure. However, I would tend to agree with Jackson Carlaw that he should have come in this instance to argue his case to show that the judiciary was not seen as a law unto itself. Does the member share my view that, on one level, there is nothing new about this? Prior to 2009, law lords had to declare an interest if they were members of the House of Lords. In some senses, we are asking for a reintroduction of something that used to exist and was well established in Scotland. I agree that that is a fair point. Perhaps because I am a former journalist that I naturally leaned towards increased transparency in all areas of public life, and the committee convener outlined that very well in his opening remarks, I take great pride in the fact that there is more transparency in this Parliament than there is in Westminster. No, thank you. However, I have considered the safeguards outlined today by ministers, in particular the judicial oath, which I am sure all our judges take very seriously indeed. I would pass comment that I do not think that many members of the public know about the judicial oath or what it entails. I would be interested to know more about the process that kicks in if someone is suspected of breaking the judicial oath. Has that ever happened and what are the consequences? I have also read the Lord President's letter to David Stewart MSP with great interest. I was not particularly convinced by the passage on practical considerations in which he suggests that it would not be possible to identify all the interests that the subtext seemed to be. It was a bit of a hassle. Well, yes, it is a bit of a hassle. It is probably a bit of a hassle for us as well, but it is something that has got to be done. I was more swayed by the passage on unintended consequences where the Lord President says that consideration requires to be given to judges privacy and freedom from harassment and aggressive media or hostile individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. It is possible that the information held on such a register could be abused. Those are significant concerns. If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself unlike a politician. I thought that that was actually quite a fair comment. However, I do not think that the matter of a register of judges interests is going to disappear. We have already seen the progress that is being made here and in New Zealand as a result of the debate being opened up, even though that is short of establishing a register. It is important that all national institutions continue to revise their procedures in order to retain public confidence. It is very easy if they do not do that to see how public confidence can be lost. The Westminster Parliament expenses scandal blew up precisely because of a lack of transparency in that system. There was a belief, as I recall, that if MPs were completely transparent in what they claimed that they would somehow open them up to too much scrutiny, that was a bad thing. In the end, they really came a cropper by doing that. Similarly, in Westminster, the claims of historic child abuse by powerful establishment figures and how that may or may not have been dealt with by the authorities at the time surely demonstrates that the way things were done 30 years ago is not the way we should do things now. I very much hope that the Lord President is paying attention to this debate. In that point that I made earlier, in terms that we have to move with the times, it is a recurring feature of tabloid newspapers to draw attention to the fact of judges who do not move with the times. One particularly famous incident was in a court case down south when the footballer Paul Gascoigne was taking someone who had written an unauthorised biography to court. The judge clearly had no idea who Paul Gascoigne was. His lawyer had to explain that he was a very famous footballer and the judge replied, rugby or association. I very gently suggest to the Lord President, in whose gift this is, that we cannot legislate for it in this Parliament, that he should perhaps be mindful of the judiciary to move with the times with every other public institution in order to retain the confidence of the public. The petition in the debate today highlights the important role that the Public Petitions Committee plays for this Parliament. Clearly, the issue under discussion is an easy subject area and is a relatively straightforward one, as many members have already indicated. The resistance to having a general register of judicial interests seems, in my mind, and that of many others comes from ingrained conservative forces. I am clearly not talking about Mr Carlaw in this instance. However, in terms of his impersonation of one of his colleagues, he may highlight the conservative nature of the legal profession. The committee has attempted to engage in a positive manner with all those identified by the petition. The same cannot be said of all those who have had an input on the public record. The Lord President, Lord Gill, declined to accept the invitation by the committee to give evidence and respect to the petition based on constitutional principle, and in particular referenced to the Scotland Act 1998, section 23, subsection 7. While that might be considered by some to be a reasonable response, it is undermined by the fact that Lord Gill has appeared before other committees of this Parliament. Principally, there is good practice taking place in Scotland. That means that the elected members such as councillors and members of this Parliament have to make undertakings in terms of their own register of interests. Why the lack of positive engagement is essentially a mystery to me, especially when the then judicial complaints reviewer, Ms Moy Alley, supported the petition in both correspondence and excellent oral evidence to the Public Petitions Committee? We already know, has been reported widely, that details of shareholdings of those on the Scottish courtservice board are already in place. I welcome the information that has been discussed earlier relating to the recusal by sheriffs and judges in cases that they have decided that they cannot sit in judgment on. Lord Justice Newberger, the President of the UK Supreme Court, in a speech on 26 August 2014, said to the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club. The rule of law also requires the honest, fair, efficient and open dispensation of justice, and, therefore, there is no hope for the rule of law unless we have judges who are independent, honest, fair and competent and who are seen to be independent, honest, fair and competent. Clearly, we have to ask the question, why can we not have a register? No doubt, the associated media coverage covering the non-appearance of Lord Gill to the Public Petitions Committee has led to the title of Lord No-No. It is not something that I particularly welcome, although, quite frankly, it seems to have a degree of merit of an individual who spends six days in guitar and giving a speech talking about transparency and judicial regulation that lasted one hour while not finding the courtesy to accept an invitation from a mandatory committee of this Parliament. I welcome the opportunity to raise awareness of the petition and the petitioner's work in relation to the petition, which could be dismissed by some unkind types as a boring constitutional matter. However, clearly, as others have spoken in this debate today, linking it to registers of interests in other areas clearly highlights what this Parliament has to do in relation to making sure that everyone, no matter who the public are dealing with, is held in high regard. A register of interests for judges, I would argue, would be one of those areas where we could move forward and build more confidence in the system that we have in place. To quote part of the speech that Lord Gill gave in guitar, in his last paragraph, he quoted as saying, "...one drawback of a jurisdiction steeped in tradition is a slow reaction to change and to modernise." Lord Gill should re-read his own words and reflect on the speech that he gave in guitar, and maybe he could do that same speech in Scotland and bring the judicial system up to a standard that we would all like to see it holding. As I said, the petition clearly highlights the work of the Petitions Committee and I look forward to more challenging petitions being heard by the committee that can be subject to debate in this chamber. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me start by congratulating Peter Cherby for bringing this forward, because whatever position we take on the substance of his petition, I think that it is opportun that we have the opportunity to debate the issues around this, because they are far from being trivial, far from being processed. They go to the very heart of trust in the justice system. Just for the record, I am not speaking in any sense today, as the convener of the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, but as an individual member of the Parliament, I heard with some grave misgivings how Jackson Carlaw introduced his contribution by saying he had really nothing to say. I wondered if this particular debate was going to turn out to be one of those debates, because real political debates are not over when everything has been said, they are only over when everybody has said it. However, so far, everybody has made an individual contribution, and I think that that has been very good. I interviewed Graham Pearson for a particular reason, because I tried to consider when my formal register of interests in this Parliament has come into play in my contributions over the years. I have voluntary things that I put in, as many of us do, because I think that, even though I am not required to, they are things that might matter, like a shareholding in a major bank, which is voluntarily declared by me but is below the level mandating requirement, because that touches on lots of things. However, when we talk about the kind of interests and connections that a judge might have that will cause recusal, I very much suspect but cannot prove at this stage that finance will be the least of them. It will almost certainly, I guess, be relationships, membership of clubs, attendance at events. Mr Stewart, as always, the member is correct. The 14 recrusals so far are, by and large, about relationships. In other words, a sheriff knows a witness, and the member is quite right that there was very few financials in the last 14. I am most obliged for that. I certainly didn't know that. You have put flesh on my assumption. We will see how it bands out when there are more numbers. Of necessity, you cannot anticipate and put in a register everything of that carry that is going to come up, because your whole life would need to be in the register. I have been doing genealogical research into my family tree for over 50 years. I have 4,600 people in my family tree. How could I put them all in the register meaningfully? We have got to be very careful to not imagine that this is the silver bullet. I really do want to try and cover one or two things if I may, Mr Wilson, if possible. I will come back. It is not a new issue, the issue of judges. Indeed, if we look at article 19 of the union with England Act 1707, it is actually one of the bigger parts of that act, and it is about the appointment of judges. In particular, it says, for example, no writer to the signet be capable to be admitted to the Lord of Session unless he undergoes a private and public trial on the civil law before the faculty of advocates and be found by them to be qualified for the said office. It is not new that we worry about who we appoint as judges. That takes us to the very heart of the matter. The Romans had the saying, quiscustodia et ipsus custodias, who will guard the guards. If judges are misbehaving or not coming to the request, how do we deal with that? Inevitably, it has got to be a judicial process exercised by whomsoever who grips that one. What we have got to do is to appoint the right people, because I do not think that we can prescribe and describe all the circumstances that may touch upon their ability to make decisions. That is not to say that having a register of financial interests is without value. I do not say that. I just do not want colleagues to imagine that that really does much more than scratch the surface of the issue. We have all got interests. The cabinet secretary has been giving us a budget today. Will the cabinet secretary be buying a house in the future and therefore will be affected by the decisions that he has brought to Parliament about taxing transactions on housing? Of course, he answers yes, but the real test is that he must not do anything that is other than affecting the generality people and instead affects him or a group of which he is a member particularly. That is the kind of test that judges have to have in the mind at all times. I will close by saying that I encourage Lord Gill and his successors to think about recalibrating their relationship with Parliament. However, when my colleague Joan McAlpine talked about being a journalist, I immediately thought that journalists are entitled to and properly do to keep their sources secret. Not everything can be in the public domain. Ultimately, we have to choose the right people, we have to trust them and we have to treat them extremely harshly if that trust is not fulfilled. Thank you. Mr Stevenson now moves to closing speech and would call on Jackson Carlaw just under five minutes. May I deal with the contributions to what has turned out to be an interesting debate? Angus MacDonald has said that what Lord Gill had done was to deliver a snub to the committee. I think that it was more that he delivered a snub to the Scottish people because the committee is the public petitions committee of the Parliament. The whole point of that is that we should be able to allow petitions that are raised by members of the public to receive a proper airing and for those arguments to be tested. In a sense, we were not able to test the arguments of the Lord President because he would not engage. John Wilson is absolutely right—I have it here—a 16-page speech that the Lord President gave in Qatar. Incorporating the very issues that we had addressed had the committee known that we could have applied to the parliamentary authorities to go to Qatar to hear the speech in person and tackle the Lord President there. If he would not come to the committee, the committee could have gone to him. Mr Finlay? I wonder if Lord Gill has reflected on his non-appearance and how he feels when someone does not turn up in his court. I shan't stray there but I am tempted. Ann McTagger articulated, as number of members did, why there is a perfectly balanced argument in favour of a register. David Torrance talked too about how those are commonplace. He also touched on the register of accusals, which David Stewart mentioned too, which arose as a result of the conversations that he and the deputy convener did have informally with the Lord President. For that, I suppose, we must be grateful. David Torrance said that that did not meet the petitioner's concerns. I would say that it is not the job of the committee to uphold necessarily the petitioner's concerns, but to evaluate the evidence underpinning it and then to form a judgment. That is where, again, I say that we have been slightly prevented from our obligations. Neil Finlay talked about the perception of transparency, and he listed the various things. Therein lies some of my concern, because were judges to have to register their religion, and that was then thought by somebody who was appearing before a judge as a reason to suggest that there might be impartiality in the proceedings that then took place. We would simply parallelise the court system with there being endless reasons to object to the appointment of any particular judge. I hope that she will not find it inexcusable of me, but I found that I agreed almost entirely with Joan McAlpine's speech this afternoon. I think that she talked about the letter that Lord Gil presented, which talked about the practicality and the consequential issues. I think that the consequential issues that he identified were the perfectly legitimate counterargument to the natural assumption that, in the modern age, there should be a register. Again, I say that, had he subjected his reasons to the open test of committee discussion, which would have been perfectly friendly and informed, I believe that those who would most likely have persuaded the committee on this balance that that was the correct position going forward. John Wilson referred to an impression of one of my colleagues. He might suggest that I did that. I could not possibly recognise it as such. Stuart Stevenson talked about the modern argument in all of that, and then, to my astonishment, whoever this Roman was all those years ago, he has been quoted two days in a row in exactly the same quotation in this Parliament, so it has somewhat brought back the fact that nothing is modern, everything is timeless when you come to many of these judgments and issues. I close again simply by saying that I am not myself on balance persuaded that a register is necessary. I refer back to the safeguards that exist. I would say, mind you, that we swear an oath too and nonetheless still subscribe to a register, so it is a balance, but that balance and that argument and that judgment is much more reliably likely to stand the test of public scrutiny if it is subject to proper public debate. I feel that we are here today because we were not able to do that. Thank you very much. I will now call Dr Elaine Murray up to five minutes or just slightly less. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I can assure members that this will be the last time you have to hear from me this week, which ensures a relief to everybody. The Public Petitions Committee, I first of all, is to be congratulated on its tenacity in pursuing this because there are obviously obstacles put in its way, and the committee continued to pursue this over a substantial period of time. I personally had been completely unaware until last week when the debate was scheduled that members of the judiciary are not required to publish a register of their interests. If I had been aware, I might have added it to my list of unsuccessful amendments to the court reform bill. I am sure that, had I done so, the minister would have informed me, Angus MacDonald said that it was a matter for the Lord President and not for the bill. Dave Stewart and Roseanna Cunningham and others have reminded us that there are three safeguards in the judicial oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics and, indeed, the complaints procedure, and that members of the judiciary can recuse themselves. That is another word that I have added to my vocabulary since going on to the Justice Committee. I do not know if I have ever had any reason to use it other than about the judiciary, but they are able to do so anyhow when that is published as of April. As others have said, as that publication is added to, we may get more idea about why people, judges, are recusing themselves. David Torris and others drew a parallel with members of this Parliament. As Jackson Carlaw said, we are required to take an author affirmation. We have a code of conduct and complaints about us can be investigated by the Standards Committee. I do not think that any of us would think that those three safeguards would be sufficient to ensure public confidence, and that is really what is important here. We are required to update our register of interests and declare gifts, whether we employ close relatives. We are required to register any new interests within 28 days of those interests arising. As John McAlpine said, that might be a bit of a hassle, but we all recognise why it is important that we are required to do so. The minister suggested that we are required to do so because we are accountable to the public. As Neil Findlay said, it is a scrutiny of decision-making institutions whose decisions can seriously affect members of the public. When we look at it in that context, the issue of register of interests from the judiciary becomes more important. Local councillors are also required to maintain an updated register of interests. I do not know how all councils operate that, but I know that in Dumfries and Galloway, where a council has registered interests in a part of the business of a meeting, it cannot even attend that part of the meeting, still let's take part in discussions. It is not even allowed to sit there glaring at their fellow councillors—they have to leave the room. I do not think that any elected member resents his requirements. It seems absolutely right that there is transparency in the issue that Anne McTarget raised, which is very important. Any personal interests that might possibly affect our decisions are published and that there is easily access to the public so that the public can check up. We are online and it is easy for the public to check up whether we have any particular interests. As was drawn out in the discussions around the committees, there are not just politicians who are required to register their interests. Members of boards of public agencies such as the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Ambulance Service are required to register their interests. In fact, three judges sit on the board of the Scottish Court Service and their interests have to be registered. That begs the question, why not others? As David Stewart pointed out in his intervention, members of the House of Lords have to do so. The law lords in the past, prior to the installation of the Supreme Court, the law lords were expected to publish their interests. Why does the situation have to differ for judges? I realise that there is an issue around litigants who are unhappy about the judgments and there are security issues. The register could surely be drawn up in such a way as to protect those interests. We are protected, so we can have constituents who do not much like us or who are upset about what we have done or have not done in pursuance of their cases. There are safeguards in our register that cannot necessarily find where we stay, so surely we will be able to do the same thing for judges. It is the case that the judiciary of Scotland is a small band of people. Many of them originate from the same strata of society. People are suspicious of the old-school tie and who their friends are, who their family and financial relationships are. As others said, a membership of certain organisations can be suspected of being influential. The more that that is in the public domain, the more that people can be assured that those things are not affecting the way in which judgments are made. In the words of Roy Alley, who stood down as the judicial complaints reviewer this summer after her three-year service, given the position of powers held by the judiciary, it is essentially not only that they have absolute integrity but, crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity. I think that the issue is about them being seen, not that anybody is doubting their integrity but that the public can see that they have integrity. Thank you very much. I now call on Minister Rizanna Cunningham. Today's debate has given us the opportunity to discuss issues around transparency and conflicts of interest and whether a register of judicial interests would address those. I sense, however, that much of this debate has really been about the process of getting here. Members will forgive me if I don't get too drawn into that aspect of the discussion. It is not really for me to intervene in the procedures of either committees or calling of witnesses, etc. I am sure that if there are concerns expressed about that, they might be taken up in another place. The debate also did range rather more widely than the motion might have suggested that it was going to. That is understandable. We have heard differing views expressed about the need for a register of judicial interests. As I indicated, some contributions went very widely indeed. In exchange of views is always welcome. We all recognise the importance of the need to ensure judicial independence and, of course, judicial accountability and transparency. However, as I said in my opening remarks, there are already key safeguards in place to ensure both the independence and the accountability of the judiciary. Those important safeguards are to repeat the judicial oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics that were issued by the judicial office for Scotland in 2010 and the Judiciary and Courts Scotland Act 2008. That debate has given us the opportunity to put that on the record that those do exist. We have seen it from the debate this afternoon that, if the Lord President was to introduce a register of judicial interests, there is a wide breadth of interests that might need to be declared. As raised by a number of members, among them Stuart Stevenson, Graham Pearson, material relationships might, in many cases, be more relevant than pecuniary interests. I am right in saying that it was David Stewart who described a situation in which a judge had to recuse himself because he had been at a social event as one of the key lawyers in the case. I do not want to misrepresent what he said, but I think that that was my recollection that it was along those lines. Frankly, if you take that too far, you will either have to cloister judges permanently or no cases would ever be heard, because the way in which our social relationships work in Scotland makes it almost impossible to avoid that happening on a number of occasions. I am grateful for giving way and I understand the point that she is making. Can the minister just say something though about the point that I have made a couple of times that this is not all new and before the Supreme Court that law lords register their interests day and daily for generations? There is an assumption that this is all new and this is not all new. Perhaps the member would allow me to get into the speech, because I indeed want to come back to that particular point. However, we have also heard how action is being taken by the Lord President to increase transparency in this area. The register of judges recusals recently set up by the Scottish Court Service is an excellent example of that, and over time it will give us a better understanding of how that process works. I am sure that the Lord President will read the report of this debate and the contributions of various members with interest. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion of his decision regarding attendance of the committee. However, as referred to by John McAlpine and others—I am not quite sure if I remember who—he has warned that the introduction of a register of judicial interests could have unintended consequences. In his words, consideration needs to be given to judges' privacy and freedom from harassment from the media or individuals, including dissatisfied litigants. If publicly criticised or attacked, a point that has not been raised by anybody is that a judicial office holder cannot publicly defend him or herself unlike a politician. We have the opportunity to respond to criticism a judge would not. They do not have the same right of reply that we have. I have to ask what would be included on a register. If we are agreed that it is far less likely to be financial interests that create problems, then it is to be social, familiar and other relationships that would have to somehow encompass those. However, a register including those relationships would be very difficult to compile. Family trees, friendships and all sorts of organisations and affiliations would have to be included. Neil Findlay even seemed to suggest that religious affiliations should also be included. How on earth to know in advance what might or might not cause a problem in a case as yet unseen? It is interesting that all members contributing this afternoon have avoided reference to a register in anything other than very general terms, but it is equally clear that it is assumed that such a register would go beyond the financial. I have outlined some of the issues that I think would arise once it was given closer consideration. I have come to the point raised by David Stewart in respect to the situation in the House of Lords prior to the creation of the UK Supreme Court. As I understand it, that was confined to financial interests. It was not the kind of register that people have generally discussed this afternoon. Furthermore, when the Supreme Court was set up in 2009, that financial register was decided would not be continued and instead a code of judicial conduct was drawn up. It is not an analogous register to what has been discussed by members. We should understand that. We should also take heed of the outcome of the report of the Council of Europe group of states against corruption. I want to just reiterate that that is an important objective assessment of where we are in terms of the judiciary in Scotland and indeed the United Kingdom. I am aware that others take a different view about the need for a register, the former judicial complaints reviewer, considered that it would increase transparency and public trust. As I said earlier, it would be for the Lord President to establish such a register of interests in his capacity as head of the Scottish judiciary. However, as a Government, we do not consider that there is currently any evidence to suggest that the existing safeguards are not effective and we do not consider that such a register is necessary. Indeed, some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon should point to how difficult it might be to compile the kind of register that people think might be appropriate. A number of members referred to the register of interests for MSPs, but that is very different because we are directly accountable to the electorate. That is why the register exists for us and even for us. Things like religious affiliations are not required to be registered and neither are our circles of friends and relatives and all the kinds of social relationships that give rise to some of the suspicions in respect of judges. The debate has provided the opportunity to consider all of those issues. I assure you that we will continue to keep those issues under review, but our current position is that it is not necessary. Thank you very much. I now call on Mr Brody to wind up the debate on behalf of the public petitions committee. Mr Brody, you have until five o'clock. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As anticipated, I think that this has been an interesting, even necessary debate, as Joan McAlpine pointed out. Let me make it clear, Presiding Officer, that the intent, I believe, of the petition and, indeed, that the debate is not to impugn the independence, the integrity or the credibility of the judiciary at large. In fact, the very opposite in some of the statements in the debate today. Contributions from across the chamber, all addressing the words of openness, transparency, perception, clarity, trust, the need to change, all of these embrace I think some of the concerns that we on the petitions committee had. The debate, of course, as everyone said, is rooted in the petition raised by Peter Cherry in terms of the register of interests. Of course, it did call for a pecuniary register of interests, although it did also suggest an amendment to legislation to submit general interests and also hospitality. It is perhaps instructive, Presiding Officer, to consider the history of the current position vis-à-vis the register or, indeed, the production of documents to the Parliament. Section 237 of the 1998 Scotland act stated that the Scottish Parliament may not impose a requirement to give evidence or, importantly, produce documents on a judge of any court. However, when one looks at Hansard of the time, there seems to have been little debate at the general rationale behind judiciary exemption in that debate, except for the current advocate general who suggested that it should have been incumbent upon anyone to attend and compel witnesses to attend and to produce documents. The relevance was that the provision be made to protect the judiciary's position in the constitution, that the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland would be secured and that, in the event of a potential conflict of his or her interests with the circumstances of the case, a judge would not necessarily recuse himself or herself from said case. That, of course, relies on the determination of a judge's relevant interests by the judge himself, but that tends to cover all relationships that the minister intended to, whereas primarily we were talking about monetary and hospitality considerations. There are, of course, some safeguards to ensure, as we mentioned, the impartiality of the judiciary, which might mitigate and temper suggestions of impropriety by members of the judiciary because of a lack of transparency regarding their interests, particularly those of a pecuniary nature. We have mentioned the judicial oath, where the judges swear that they will do right to all manner of people without fewer favours. There, of course, is the Judiciary and Courts Act, which sets out the rules that may be invoked if it is felt that a holder of judicial office is not acting impartially. In section 28 of that act, it allows the Lord President to make rules for the investigation and complaints of other judiciary, a matter to which I hope, briefly, to return before 5 o'clock. Thirdly, there is the statement of principles of judicial ethics for the Scottish judiciary revised in May 2013, which is to be used as a guidance of holders of judicial office in Scotland, but enshrined in that document is perhaps the basis of the petition and the basis of an understandable perception or indeed misperception, which underpins the petition and rises and gives cause to concerns. Section 4.9 of that act states, however, it is recognised that the judge may, from time to time, legitimately be entertained by legal professional or public organisations or office holders in furtherance of good relations between them and the judiciary as a whole or representatives of it. What on earth does that mean? It then goes on, furthermore, nothing said here should be understood as inhibiting judges from accepting invitations to give lectures, addresses or speeches of a non-legal nature at dinners or other occasions, or from accepting hospitality tokens of appreciation for the efforts or appropriate expenses of travel and accommodation. That in itself is okay, but I think that I know openness and transparency of information would eliminate some of the misperceptions that matter. In addition to the safeguards, we have mentioned the Council of Europe group, the Greco, which stated that it found no element of corruption against judges, but one might argue that that was not the charge, rather that a register might secure the transparency that would make their evaluations redundant. The petition raised and raised several questions, none of which I would suggest requires a defensive posture. For example, the Scottish court service, the annual report, notes that the officers and the board of which three members are judges, already declare some interests in the annual report. We also understand that the SES staff are required to register all of their interests, and I feel to understand why that cannot be extended to cover the whole of the judiciary. Secondly, the Judiciary and Courts Act set up the role of the judicial complaints reviewer. That role is set to review the handling of investigations into the conduct of the judiciary. The previous holder of that role, a role that I suggest should be much more robust and recognised as very important, indicated that, in the interests of general transparency, a register of interests of judiciary would likely lead to an increase in public confidence and trust, two of the words that I mentioned at the very beginning. Of course, that also extends not just to the SES, but to the current office and the Procurator of Fiscal Service, who operate a register of hospitality interests, and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which publishes a full register of interests of hospitality entities. We accept that the petition called for a register of pecuniary interests. It recognised that we need to try to capture not all of the other concerns that might arise, as the minister said, for example family relationships, and so we accept that, in practical terms, it might be impossible to capture all interests that might arise or cause concern. The owner should rightly be on the judge or the sheriff to declare any relationship interests at the beginning of such a case and to recuse appropriately if necessary. Lastly, there is the concern that such a register would have unintended consequences, a phrase that has been used often today, for the judicious freedom and privacy, or freedom from harassment from the media or dissatisfied litigants. Those are concerns, but they are no less so for others, including MPs and MSPs and others in public life, who may be attacked publicly for non-declaration of interests. While it is argued that the establishment of such a register may have unintended consequences of eroding public confidence in the judiciary, it might equally be argued that its absence may have that very effect. I congratulate Peter Cheruby, the petitioner. May I welcome the exchange that we had with the Lord President, although I had wished to be in front of all the committee on that issue. The issue that I suspect will still be a topic for review and will be, as Stuart Stevenson said, recalibrated, and perhaps the snub to the Scottish people will be recovered. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss and debate this in a meaningful way today. Thank you, Mr Brodie. That concludes the public petition's committee debate on petition number PE1458, register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. We now move on to decision time. There is one question to be put, and that is the question is that motion number 11078, in the name of David Stewart, on petition number PE1458, register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary, be agreed to, are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. I know how tough these last few weeks have been for you all exhausted as you are after the referendum campaign, so take some time out. We'll see each other again in two weeks' time, suitably relaxed and refreshed. I now close this meeting.