What are we to make of a public body – a judicial body at that – which conducts its affairs in this extraordinary fashion?
The fact that the tribunal was unaware of what was on its own website – indeed what it obviously regards as the most sensitive part of the site – does nothing to dispel the unfavourable impression created by the public utterances of the Auditor-General for Scotland and the Sheriff Principal of Glasgow. To put it plainly: if the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland is unable to manage efficiently the contents of its own website, and requires the media to point out what is on it, it is difficult to be wholly confident about other aspects of its operation. Sheriff Principal Taylor used the words ‘little short of astonishing’ to describe his experience with this body in the Byrne case. The same words apply to my own experience.
But there is a much larger issue involved here. It is the issue of openness and accountability in Scottish public life.
When the tribunal was established, there was no suggestion that the names of the tribunal members would be withheld from the media or from the public in general. On the contrary, as I have pointed out, NHS National Services Scotland invited anyone interested to visit the tribunal’s website for these names.
My first questions are: at what stage did the tribunal change its policy and decide that, notwithstanding the inept management of its website, it would rather not divulge the names of its members?; and why was this change of policy introduced?
My next questions are: does the tribunal consider that it enjoys some special status separate from every other public body in Scotland?; if so, why?
This is a body which makes life-changing decisions about the freedom of individuals. The importance of its work is no doubt reflected in the fee structure: £620 a day for the president, £430 a day for the legal members, £387 a day for the medical and lay members. The level of remuneration for these part-time appointments is extremely generous compared with other public bodies: it amounts to an enormous annual bill. This bill is met by the public. For this reason, but much more vitally for the welfare of patients and their families, the public has a right to know who they are.
It seems the public has no such right. It seems that the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland is above the law governing freedom of information. We have entrusted the lives of our most vulnerable citizens to a group of 364 which meets in panels of three behind closed doors, consigning men and women to mental institutions, some for life, and yet insists on remaining anonymous. We have created a secret judiciary for which there is no defence morally. The names must be published.
The Scottish Review invites comments from readers. Please email islay@scottishreview.net
[click here] for No Freedom of Information
05.10.09
Issue no 149
SCOTLAND’S
SECRET
JUDGES
They exercise the power to
detain Scotland’s most
vulnerable people
They are paid for by us
They are accountable to us
Yet we are not allowed
to know who they are
[click here]
NO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Scotland’s Information Commissioner confirms
they are above the law
[click here]