SCOTLAND’s top judge has clashed with MSPs after saying he was “surprised” they were still investigating whether members of the judiciary should publish details of their finances.

The Lord President, Lord Carloway, has also asked a Holyrood committee for more information before agreeing to give oral evidence on the disclosure of judges’ outside interests.

Peter Cherbi, a legal campaigner whose petition put the issue under the spotlight, said it was “disappointing” that the judge was taking this position.

Holyrood's Public Petitions committee has for four years been considering whether judges and sheriffs should have to declare "pecuniary" interests such as directorships and shareholdings.

Politicians, quango board members and other public sector figures have to publish a register, but judicial office holders face no requirement.

However, the proposal has been resisted by the judiciary, whose members fear their privacy would be infringed.

Lord Gill, the former Lord President, twice snubbed the committee’s request for him to follow up his written evidence with a face-to-face grilling.

He cited a provision of the Scotland Act 1998 that exempts judges from having to give evidence, but he eventually appeared in front of MSPs after he retired.

Lord Carloway, who replaced Lord Gill, is similarly opposed to a register of interest. In written evidence to MSPs, he claimed: “The proposal for a public register of the judiciary’s interests, gifts and hospitality is both unnecessary and undesirable.

“It is inappropriate for judges to make public comment beyond their judicial opinions in relation to individual cases. Therefore, unlike an elected representative or a member of the Government, a judge enjoys no right of reply.”

Weeks ago, MSPs on the committee decided they wanted to hear from Lord Carloway in person:

Angus MacDonald, an SNP MSP and deputy convener of the committee, said at the time: “I would be interested to ask if he would be keen to come in and give oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”

In his response to the Committee’s invitation, Lord Carloway stated: “I, and my colleagues, were under the impression that this matter had concluded, or was about to do so. I am a little surprised that it has been raised once again.

“I am of course happy to assist the deliberations of the Committee as best I can. However, I covered the major issues, as I saw them, in some details in my letter of February 8. I referred in that letter to certain views expressed by Lord Gill with which I agreed.”

He continued: “I am anxious to understand what further questions might be asked which I, or my predecessor, have not already answered. It would be helpful if you could set out for me the particular issues, in relation to this proposal, upon which the Committee would wish to take further evidence from me.”

Cherbi said: “This is rather disappointing. Scotland’s top judge feels unable to give a public account of his opposition to transparency and face questions from our elected MSPs.

“How can the judiciary keep falling down at the first hurdle when someone asks them to be as open as judges require everyone else to be in court?”

Scottish Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said: “People won’t have any sympathy with judges creating some kind of trade union against any kind of public scrutiny. Virtually every other area of public life is subject to this and many will think there’s no reason why judges should be any different.”

A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said: “The Public Petitions Committee will next consider Peter Cherbi’s petition at its meeting on December 22. Both the Lord President’s letter and Peter Cherbi’s views will be taken into account when the Committee discusses the petition.”