Justice Committee, 11 Nov 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Official Report 257KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Justice of the Peace Court (Sheriffdom<br />of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/328)<br />Stipendiary Magistrates (Specified Day) (Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/330)

Agenda item 2 is consideration of two Scottish statutory instruments, under the negative resolution procedure, pertaining to the sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin.

Prior to the formal procedure on the instruments, members may put questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials. I welcome Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice; Gerard Bonnar, head of the summary justice reform branch of the criminal procedure division of the Scottish Government; Stephen Crilly, solicitor in the criminal justice, police and fire division of the Scottish Government; and Eric McQueen, director of field services in the Scottish Court Service. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to the instruments.

Thank you for inviting me to address the committee on the two orders. The Stipendiary Magistrates (Specified Day) (Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/330) is a brief instrument with a limited purpose. The order merely specifies a date for the purposes of section 74(12) of the Criminal Proceedings etc Reform (Scotland) Act 2007. The specified date is 8 December 2008. The statutory basis for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates will change from that date. Until then, they hold their appointment under the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975. From 8 December, they will hold their appointment under the 2007 act. The existing stipendiary magistrates will automatically be reappointed, unless they decline.

The Justice of the Peace Court (Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/328) is also made under the 2007 act. The order establishes a justice of the peace court in the sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, and makes consequential and transitional provision. The order establishes one JP court for that sheriffdom. At the same time as the order comes into force, a commencement order will bring into force for the sheriffdom the repeal of the provisions of the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975, under which local authorities operate district courts. That function will be repealed for the three local authorities concerned, so they will no longer require, nor be entitled to operate, district courts within the sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin.

The JP court order makes provision for a staff transfer scheme for any staff transferring to the employment of the Scottish Court Service. It also makes provision for the transfer of certain records in relation to penalties that are not specifically covered by the 2007 act. The order makes transitional provisions to assist in the smooth transition of on-going cases from Glasgow, Rutherglen and Kirkintilloch district courts to the new JP court. For example, those provisions will allow the courts to fix dates in the new court before it is fully established. The provisions for transfers of records and for transitional arrangements complement and supplement the provisions of section 66 of the 2007 act.

That is a brief outline of what the orders do. I understand that members may have questions about some of the underlying circumstances. I am only too happy to try to answer them, in conjunction with the officials accompanying me.

I wonder whether I may quiz the cabinet secretary a little further on the policy aspect of the proposals, not so much with regard to the integration of the sheriff court and district court arrangements per se as with regard to the extent to which the distribution of local justice courts, if you like, is an appropriate issue. Across Scotland, circumstances vary from urban to semi-urban to rural. What consideration has been given to the need for local justice and to the advantages of, for example, reporting in the local press and access by local witnesses to local courts?

That is an excellent point. We fully accept that this is not simply about Rutherglen, Kirkintilloch and Glasgow because similar arrangements have applied in other areas. This is a rolling programme, and we have already seen local concern about closures in Kingussie, Inverurie, Nairn and other places. Clearly, we are trying to get a correct balance in order to maintain local matters. That is why, for example, we have retained JP courts, which was a policy of the last Administration that we supported. It seems to us that our provisions have the benefit of retaining JPs who can comment on their locality and know what is important to the community. Even if they have to move from a siting in the community, they can comment and act on incidents of criminal offending in their community.

Clearly, other matters arise regarding how people can get to court and how those who are punished are dealt with. We have tried to ensure that such matters are provided for. We think that we have an appropriate balance that will ensure that we get the best out of JP courts and the expertise and specific community involvement that they provide. We now have facilities that are fit for purpose in the 21st century, with the requirements for security and, indeed, legal advice from those who must provide it to the courts. At the same time, we are maintaining what they provide, which is the ability of the bench to reflect particular communities. We appreciate that individual areas, whether Rutherglen or Inverurie, have particular sensitivities. However, we believe that those can be maintained because existing JPs will transfer and the distinctive aspects of their communities will still be reflected, albeit in a different base.

But what principle underlies your decision on whether local courts should continue in some areas but not in others? That is what I am getting at. When you come to look at the provision in Lanarkshire, I imagine that there will be courts in East Kilbride, Hamilton and such places. Is it to do with the amount of court business or the nearness of other courts? What principle do you operate on? There is no hint of that in the consultation paper.

A variety of factors is involved, one of which is the volume of court business. For example, with regard to the two orders that are before the committee, Kirkintilloch can have a court on only one day a month and Rutherglen can have a court on only one or two days, at most, a month. Another factor is the proximity of a court to other courts. Clearly, consideration was given to whether the Rutherglen court could be transferred to Hamilton or East Kilbride, or into the city of Glasgow.

Those are two factors among many, including individual mitigating factors. However, as I said, the volume of business, the ability of the premises to provide the balance between local identity and security and appropriate service, and proximity to other courts are important factors.

I think that the consultation paper refers to the custody facilities at Rutherglen court, which I presume have operated up to now. There will continue to be a need for custody facilities in the police station next door, with all the advantages that that may have. Was consideration given to the overall need for custody facilities that comprise the police station and the court?

I remind the minister that our procedures allow for the officials to speak to us directly—that is a matter for you, Mr MacAskill, but it might save time.

At Rutherglen district court there are low levels of custody. There are police facilities next door, but that is not a sensible arrangement; the preference is to ensure that there are secure custody facilities in the court building—

Why is it not a sensible arrangement?

It is about the separation of the police cells and court accommodation. The idea is to free up police cells for police use during the day as prisoners are transferred into the court building. We had initial thoughts about how the design of Rutherglen district court could be changed, but the cost of upgrading the existing facilities to try to create a secure environment would have been in excess of £200,000. Given the proportion of business that comes through the court, we took the view that such costs were not justifiable.

What is the problem with the current arrangements?

It is not so much that there is a problem; district courts have run well for years. However, unification throughout Scotland is creating pressures to do with security costs and we need to ensure that there is a consistent standard throughout the country. It could be that our proposals set a new standard for the delivery of criminal business.

Rutherglen and Cambuslang are in the curious position of being within the sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin for the purposes of criminal business, while being provided with social work services by South Lanarkshire Council and with health services increasingly through the local community health partnership. How does all that fit together? One of your priorities is to "improve service integration", which seems difficult to do if the authority that provides social work follow-up is different from the authority that covers the main part of the sheriffdom.

The issue has been addressed. There is already a procedure in relation to community service or supervision orders that would apply to a person who misbehaved on an outing from Rutherglen to Glasgow and was dealt with at Glasgow sheriff court. The procedure will simply become part of the new arrangements.

You make a valid point about the need for harmonisation—we think that there is harmonisation. We made inquiries and were satisfied by South Lanarkshire Council that procedures are in place and no difficulty is anticipated. We hope that there will be a seamless transition. People who are transferred to the new JP court from Rutherglen district court will be dealt with by South Lanarkshire Council—just as has been the case for some people who were dealt with by Glasgow sheriff court. Equally, anyone who is transferred in from Kirkintilloch will ultimately be dealt with by East Dunbartonshire Council. You are correct to make the point, but the procedures exist and, in the main, work effectively.

I have been told that the social work service in Rutherglen in South Lanarkshire is not linked electronically to the sheriff court, which creates issues to do with meeting targets. Has consideration been given to such problems? Social work and police facilities are close to Rutherglen district court.

I am not aware of technical issues. For more significant offending, there is certainly a procedure in the sheriff court whereby a person is more likely to get a community service order than would be the case in the district court, where lower-tariff offences will be dealt with—Eric McQueen might want to comment on whether things are done electronically. Procedures exist and we are not aware of significant difficulties. As I said, it seems that matters can be dealt with. However, there might be technical issues of which I am unaware.

I am not aware of technical issues. The aim of unification is to improve the technical transfer of information between organisations. Unification will give us a single information technology system for all courts in Scotland. We are working closely with social services on the exchange of information and to ensure that we create space in the court environment in which social workers can be based. The process is very much about partnership working and improving communication between organisations.

Is South Lanarkshire Council in favour of or against the proposals? Also, is there a prospect of a further review of boundaries, which might affect the issue?

On the latter point, we await the result of Lord Gill's review. The programme is being rolled out in other sheriffdoms, to try to provide an improved service to everyone who is involved in the court system, as Eric McQueen said. It is our intention to continue the roll-out in other sheriffdoms and we do not anticipate changes until Lord Gill and his wise men and women have given us their final views and the Parliament has decided what it wants to do as a result.

I understand that the council intimated formal opposition, but beyond that I do not think that it has sought to engage in the process or raise matters.

Given that you are relying on Lord Gill's review, would it be sensible to await the review's outcome before making changes that will take away existing provision, which I think that you said is working reasonably well?

We cannot wait for Lord Gill's review, basically. Whether the review will lead to legislation during the current parliamentary session is debatable—it might or might not do. It is unlikely that such legislation will be introduced to the Parliament before a considerable time has passed. There are matters that we must progress, to ensure that there is a better service at sheriff and district court levels.

The programme dates back to 2001, when Sheriff Principal McInnes started his review—the process has been in train for quite a long time.

How many cases are called annually at Rutherglen district court?

Rutherglen hears about 600 cases per year on average. There are probably about two trials per sitting. The court sits twice monthly.

If members have no further questions on SSI 2008/328 or SSI 2008/330, we will move on.

No points were raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee on SSI 2008/328. Are members content to note the instrument?

I intimate formally that, in light of the cabinet secretary's replies, I will seek to annul the order.

Right. You will seek to do that in the Parliament—

The order will come back to the committee.

Yes, the order will have to come back to the committee next week.

No points were raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee on SSI 2008/330, which appears not to be controversial. Are members content to note the order?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/334)

No points were raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee on SSI 2008/334, which is also subject to the negative resolution procedure. Are members content to note the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

We will have a brief pause to allow the next panel of witnesses to take their places.