Justice 2 Committee, 18 Apr 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Official Report 169KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Maximum Number of Part-Time Sheriffs (Scotland) Order 2006 (draft)

Item 2 is subordinate legislation. We have one affirmative instrument to consider today. No points were raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I invite the minister to speak to the draft order.

Part-time sheriffs are used in a number of situations. They cover for full-time sheriffs who are absent on annual leave or sick leave or who are attending training courses. They also help out when the pressure of business calls for more resources than the full-time sheriffs can provide. Part-time sheriffs make a significant contribution to ensuring that justice is delivered as quickly and efficiently as possible. Their contribution is valued by the sheriffs principal, who run the sheriffdoms, and by the Sheriffs Association, which represents about 98 per cent of sheriffs.

The complement of full-time sheriffs stands at a record level of 140. It was previously decided that 60 part-time sheriffs was the right sort of number to support the contribution of full-time sheriffs, but five years' experience of operating in that way has shown us that 60 is not an adequate number. There are three main reasons for that. The first is that the success rate of the police in detecting crime and referring cases to the Procurator Fiscal Service has meant that business in the sheriff courts has continued at a very high level.

Secondly, the Executive has encouraged and funded an increase in training for new and experienced sheriffs, but sheriffs need time away from the bench to participate in training, which is where part-time sheriffs come in. Their contribution ensures that courts can be kept running while permanent sheriffs are engaged in developing their skills at training events.

The third reason is the requirement for sheriffs and part-time sheriffs to chair some of the new Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland tribunals that were introduced earlier this year. Hearings for restricted patients must be chaired by a member of the judiciary. The new system of tribunals is an important development in the care of patients who suffer from mental illness. It is essential that sheriffs can train for their new role and can chair hearings, so part-time sheriff cover is needed to take on business in the sheriff courts while full-time sheriffs are engaged on mental health tribunal business.

I recognise that determining the number of part-time sheriffs that is needed is not an exact science. Most part-time sheriffs have other jobs as solicitors or advocates, so their availability for part-time sheriff work is limited. We think that an increase of about 20 is right, although we cannot be exact and say that that will be the right number for ever and a day. However, such an increase will maintain a proper balance between the numbers of full-time and part-time sheriffs.

Part-time sheriffs provide an essential service by keeping the business of the sheriff courts running while full-time sheriffs are absent doing other things. We need more part-time people to cope with the general demands of the courts, to ensure that our sheriffs can participate in training and, as I said, to provide the resources that are needed to run the new system of mental health tribunals.

There are significant benefits to gain from the draft order and I commend it to the committee.

Members now have the opportunity to question the minister.

After five years, you recommend increasing the number of part-time sheriffs. Do you have a timeframe for reviewing how that increase has worked?

Not particularly. If the pressure of business is such that we need more part-time sheriffs, we will come back to you. We would rather do that quickly and respond to the demand than cause chaos and inconvenience by not having an appropriate number. Equally, if the demand for part-time sheriffs ever dropped—although I do not believe that that will happen—and we needed to reduce the complement, we would do that. However, I expect more pressure for more part-time sheriffs. We think that the proposed number is about right, but we will wait and see. However, I am reluctant to put a five-year period or any period on that.

What is the size of the pool from which you draw part-time sheriffs? There is anecdotal evidence that the number of solicitors who do court work is diminishing. I am not sure whether the number of advocates is increasing. Are you concerned about the number of people who are available for appointment as part-time sheriffs?

We have no concerns about that. Maureen Macmillan raises a separate issue about people who engage in criminal work in some parts of Scotland.

The pool to draw from is sufficient. We must have regard to the pool that is available and we will not appoint people for the sake of appointing them—they will have to have commensurate ability and experience. We believe that the people whom we appoint are of that standard.

Obviously, we will have to keep an eye on the matter, not only because we want to have an adequate pool from which to draw sheriffs, but because we want to ensure that all branches of the law in the legal system are well served throughout the country. Maureen Macmillan has previously raised with me the matter that she has raised, and we will continue to keep an eye on it.

Motion moved,

That the Justice 2 Committee recommends that the draft Maximum Number of Part-Time Sheriffs (Scotland) Order 2006 be approved.—[Hugh Henry.]

Motion agreed to.

---

Police Grant (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/91)

Four negative instruments are to be considered under item 3, the first of which is the Police Grant (Scotland) Order 2006, on which the Executive's letter of 17 March 2006 provides further background information. The Subordinate Legislation Committee raised no points on the order and members have no questions on it. Are members therefore content with the order?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2006 (SSI 2006/94)

The rules have been drawn to the attention of the committee and the Parliament by the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which sought clarification on why there was no specific power to amend or revoke any direction issued under the rules. The Executive has provided the requested clarification.

I would like to make two points on different aspects of the rules, which I support. First, there seems to be growing evidence on the number of young people with mental health problems who are admitted to young offenders institutions. Will the minister consider in due course whether guidance should specifically state that medical examinations of young people who go into institutions should cover not only their health and well-being but their mental health? The mental health aspects of the rules seem to focus on the powers to send young people with excessive mental health problems to hospital and to report to ministers.

Secondly, members of the Scottish Parliament, members of the United Kingdom Parliament and members of the European Parliament have the right to visit young people in institutions, but those young people do not have the right to make representations to their MSP, MP or MEP if they have a complaint. There are opportunities to make complaints to other people, but not to them.

Will the minister consider those matters?

I am not immediately familiar with what happens in medical examinations, but I will reflect on and respond to both points that Jeremy Purvis has made.

Are members content with the rules?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/129)<br />Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Specified Persons for Financial Reporting Orders) (Scotland) Order 2006 (SSI 2006/170)

No points have been raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee on the orders and members have no questions on them. Are members therefore content with the orders?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the minister and his support staff for attending the meeting. We now move into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 15:29.