Subordinate Legislation
Justice of the Peace Court<br />(Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/328)
The committee considered the order last week. At that stage, Robert Brown indicated that he intended to lodge a motion to annul the order. Today the committee will consider motion S3M-2869, in the name of Robert Brown, which states:
"That the Justice Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Justice of the Peace Court (Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/328)."
I welcome James Kelly MSP, who is the constituency member for Rutherglen, to the meeting. If he wishes, he may contribute to our discussions. I invite Robert Brown to speak to and move the motion.
I have no difficulty with the general move from the district court to the justice of the peace court structure—that is not an issue. I also have no difficulty with what is happening in other parts of Glasgow, although that has thrown up other issues such as the future of the Glasgow police museum, which has recently received some publicity. My concern relates to the incidental effects of the order—that is how they are described—on Rutherglen court, in particular, and on Kirkintilloch court, about which I know less.
Our starting point should be the policy that is laid out in the consultation that the Scottish Court Service conducted on the circumstances in which local courts exist or should continue to exist. Unfortunately, there was nothing about that in the document that was out for consultation from May this year and to which James Kelly and I, as well as others, took objection. The document was all about issues such as administrative convenience and gave no real indication of the circumstances in which local courts are thought by the SCS to be appropriate or of the criteria that will be applied. In Rutherglen, which has a long history and is the oldest royal burgh in Scotland, there ought to be a presumption against discontinuing the court, unless such matters have been thrashed out.
I want to raise a number of issues. The first is the policy background to the instrument, which includes Lord Gill's review of sheriff court boundaries and changes to Government policy on short-term sentences. Those will have a considerable effect, considering the slightly anomalous position of Rutherglen. It is in the sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, but it comes under South Lanarkshire Council for the purpose of social work services. Health services are provided increasingly in the context of the local health partnership, which is also in such a middle position.
In that situation, issues of liaison and overlap become important, as does the question of what the eventual structures will be. My main proposition is that it is sensible to maintain the existing courts in Rutherglen and Kirkintilloch in broadly the same format until the issues have been thrashed out, the implications of Lord Gill's review and the consideration of short-term sentencing have been understood, and we have a clearer view of what the court structures will be required to provide.
Rutherglen and Cambuslang are in the interesting position of being geographically adjacent to Glasgow—indeed, for a time they were part of the City of Glasgow District Council—while also having a sense of themselves as Lanarkshire towns with similarities to East Kilbride, Hamilton and Lanark. Some account needs to be taken of that aspect.
I am not sure whether this is borne out by reality, but it was suggested to me that liaison problems between the sheriff court and the social work department, and a lack of direct e-mail connection in particular, are leading to a backlog. Whether or not that is the case—and there is no great consideration of such issues in any of the paperwork—it is important that we thrash out how the connections will operate between the court, which under the new arrangements will be in central Glasgow, and South Lanarkshire Council departments.
A number of other issues should also be considered further. Much play is made of the expense of altering the cell arrangements in Rutherglen, and no doubt that is an issue. However, the police station is next door to the court, and there must be advantages for police time in having witnesses immediately on hand, and in officers not having to travel to a court to deal with such matters. There must also be some potential for joint arrangements with the police in using cells in Rutherglen if the current arrangements are thought to be inadequate. We seem to be seeing a Scottish Court Service perspective on the situation, rather than a more holistic and corporate view that takes account of other issues. I referred earlier to the Glasgow police museum, which is another example of that.
There are also significant advantages in local justice. James Kelly noted in his submission to the consultation that there is a local newspaper in Rutherglen—as there is Kirkintilloch—that reports routinely on local cases in a way that does not happen in Glasgow.
There are also JPs with local knowledge, which would be subsumed in a larger context. It was interesting to read the summary of the evidence that was put forward in response to the consultation. Mrs Helen Ross, a Kirkintilloch justice of the peace, said that time was needed to assess the wider impact of summary justice reform on business volume and profile before closing courts—I made exactly that point earlier. Some of the other justices who objected to the order did so on the basis of loss of local knowledge. It is interesting that the objectors to the proposals are South Lanarkshire Council, members with a local interest in the Rutherglen area in particular, and justices of the peace, not least the East Dunbartonshire justice of the peace advisory committee and the JPs who operate in Rutherglen.
There is clearly a bigger issue—which I do not depart from—of how the new JP court arrangements are being brought into existence. It is important that we get things right. Glasgow is obviously more important in terms of the volume of business, and it will be necessary for us to return to that question if the motion to annul is agreed to. However, it would not be disastrous if the changes were postponed for a bit, because a rolling out is taking place across Scotland in any event.
My primary submission is the one that I began with. There is significant business in Rutherglen—the convener identified last week that about 600 cases a year go through the court—and there is a similar, if perhaps slightly smaller number, in Kirkintilloch. The Rutherglen court meets twice a month, which some may see as relatively infrequent, but it nevertheless holds regular trials. There is enough business to keep the court going, and it has been conceded that there is no major problem in how business is done.
The Scottish Court Service has not properly thought through the abandonment of the long-standing courts in Rutherglen and Kirkintilloch—there has been no consideration of the wider issues, and no regard has been paid to what the policy should be in terms of local court arrangements. Against that background, and subject to any comments that others may make, I move,
That the Justice Committee recommends that nothing further be done under the Justice of the Peace Court (Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/328).
Do any other members wish to comment?
I thank the committee for allowing me to state my views on the motion to annul. On a lighter note, I congratulate the convener and the committee on its success at the politician of the year awards last week. Today's agenda was lengthy, and it is clear that the convener and the committee members have handled it competently in order to get through all the business.
I support Robert Brown's motion to annul the order. I declare an interest as the constituency MSP for Rutherglen and as someone who has publicly opposed the closure of Rutherglen district court and the transfer of that business to Glasgow. I support the motion for two reasons: transparency and boundaries. As MSPs, we all deal with justice issues in our constituencies and there is a strong feeling in Scotland's communities—including Rutherglen and Cambuslang—that it is important for people to be able to see the workings and the effects of the justice system.
While the district court is situated in Rutherglen, people are able to see justice being carried out. That manifests itself in reports in the Rutherglen Reformer, as the local media are able to report the business of the court. If that court business were transferred to Glasgow, the diet would be split up, and all the local cases would not be dealt with together. It would not, therefore, be possible for the local media to report the cases in the same way, so we would lose that transparency. It would also inconvenience local people, as they would have to travel into Glasgow.
I agree with much of what Robert Brown said about boundaries. Historically, Rutherglen and Cambuslang have existed as communities and councils on their own. They fell within Glasgow for a time, but recently there has, logically, been a move away from Glasgow: we joined South Lanarkshire Council in 1995. With regard to health board budgets, the local community health partnerships budget now comes under the Lanarkshire NHS Board. It is proposed as part of the reorganisation of Scottish parliamentary boundaries that the Glasgow Rutherglen seat will drop the existing Glasgow wards and move wholly into Lanarkshire, picking up some wards in Blantyre. There is a logical progression away from Glasgow, and the move of Rutherglen district court into Glasgow is therefore going against the tide.
There is also an anomaly in relation to the sheriffdom boundaries that needs to be examined. Rutherglen and Cambuslang sit within the Glasgow and Strathkelvin sheriffdom boundary, an arrangement that dates back to 1995, when all the Cambuslang and Rutherglen council wards were incorporated within that sheriffdom, while the other South Lanarkshire council wards were incorporated in the Strathclyde and Dumfries sheriffdom. The annulment of the order would allow more time to examine the boundaries and to engage in further discussion on that issue.
If committee members are not convinced by those arguments, they should remember that those are important matters for the people of Rutherglen and Cambuslang. Such matters are worthy of being aired in the chamber, which I believe would be the process if the motion is agreed to, and I respectfully ask that members of the committee consider the arguments before voting on the motion.
Good afternoon, convener, members of the committee and Mr Kelly. I oppose the motion to recommend annulment of the Justice of the Peace Court (Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008. At the committee's invitation, I explained last week the order's purpose in technical terms and answered some questions from Mr Brown and a question from the convener.
The JP court order is the latest step in a summary justice reform programme that attracted and continues to attract wide support. The process started in 2001. Everyone agreed that summary justice was in need of reform, and Jim Wallace MSP, the then Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, asked Sheriff Principal McInnes to carry out a review, which led to his report in 2004. That report was broadly welcomed across the political spectrum. It was not welcomed in every regard, of course, as there was little political support for the removal of lay justice, but the report was generally felt to take summary justice reform in the right direction, and unification of the courts was one of those steps in the right direction. Cathy Jamieson, as Minister for Justice, published a response to the report in 2005 and introduced the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill in 2006. My party duly supported that bill. It was not alone, as the bill was passed unanimously, with unification of the courts as one of its major elements.
By encouraging the early resolution of cases, summary justice reforms spare victims and witnesses unnecessary court attendances. The overall package of reforms means that fewer people in communities such as Rutherglen have to attend court at all, and, if court attendance is necessary, victims and witnesses are not required to appear as frequently. It also means that officers are being freed up to police the streets, as they are no longer hanging around in court waiting rooms.
Mr Brown asked about the principles and rationale behind the establishment of JP courts, and I welcome the chance to set them out. One of the main aims of court unification was to place the administration of our courts in the best possible hands—the professional court administrators of the Scottish Court Service—therefore, not surprisingly, we asked the SCS to consider where courts should be located to ensure local justice that was fit for the 21st century.
The SCS sought to gain the benefits of unification: service integration; one provider, not 32 authorities; one information technology system; consistent delivery; greater simplicity and accountability; better estate use; and better facilities that are suitable for victims, witnesses and all other court users. It used a number of factors to guide it and drive its decisions: business levels, value for money, the standard of existing facilities, the mix of more serious business that was to be dealt with and, of course, local access—the proximity of other courts.
In Rutherglen and Kirkintilloch, we had to take account of the low volume of business and the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities. Rutherglen is within a short travelling distance of Glasgow and is served by frequent public transport. The SCS's position is that it is not sustainable to maintain courts that deal with such a low level of business as Rutherglen.
I value the expertise of and contribution made by local justices of the peace. However, because of Rutherglen's proximity to Glasgow, local access to justice is not significantly compromised by the order, and the issue of local knowledge can be addressed adequately by the training that was introduced under summary justice reform and by justices of the peace sharing knowledge and experience. JPs have greatly welcomed that training, and Rutherglen JPs will have far more day-to-day court opportunities for contact with fellow JPs.
The Government has had to make the difficult decision whether to accept the Scottish Court Service's recommendation. We have resolved to do so because it has been thought through carefully, balancing all the interests. It is not the first time that we have had to consider such a recommendation. We took difficult decisions to close courts in Grampian, Highlands and Islands and Lothian and Borders. For instance, the district courts in Kingussie, Nairn and Penicuik were closed in previous rounds of unification, with the subsequent transfer of business to Inverness and Edinburgh JP courts.
As I have stressed, the order is part of a much wider programme that delivers benefits to all and requires a degree of change to deliver those benefits. The programme has wide support, and I urge the committee to reject the motion.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying out his position. However, he has increased rather than decreased my worries. Nobody—whether myself, James Kelly or other objectors—has taken issue with the process of moving towards JP courts, with training or with the other aspects of summary justice reform about which the cabinet secretary spoke. The issue is the location of courts and, particularly, what is happening in the Rutherglen, Cambuslang and, perhaps, Kirkintilloch areas. Although it is true that a rationale was laid out in the consultation document for the administrative arrangements and the objectives for Scottish courts administration, I reiterate that the consultation did not consider the circumstances in which local courts would or would not be approved. That remains the central point.
The point that James Kelly and I have touched on involves the particular circumstances of the two non-Glasgow courts, which lie in other jurisdictions for the purposes of other services. All that we are asking is that those matters, the background arrangements around support, the rearrangements that might emerge as a result of Lord Gill's report, and the issue of short-term sentences be properly considered. The work should be done on a more satisfactory basis, not as the result of a by-blow, which is what seems to have occurred with the proposals.
The consultation process might have attracted wide support, as you said, minister, but the issue is whether these particular proposals received support. I suggest that there has been a degree of opposition from those local people who are concerned about what is, admittedly, a relatively esoteric issue. They are the ones who know how the system works in practice, and who would have to operate differently. I am thinking not least of the local councils, particularly South Lanarkshire Council.
In accordance with my views as outlined, I will press my motion.
The question is, that motion S3M-2869 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0. I am therefore required to use my casting vote. Obviously, my casting vote shall be the same as my vote in the division.
Motion disagreed to.
In accordance with usual practice, I will make clear why I arrived at my decision. The arguments that Robert Brown and James Kelly advanced had merit and their points were arguable, but they were not compelling.
I accept that there will be inconvenience to court users, but at least two bus services leave from Rutherglen's Main Street and arrive 10 minutes later at Glasgow cross, which is one minute away from Glasgow district court. There is also a regular train service from the Cambuslang area.
The inability of the local newspaper to report Rutherglen cases is an important point, as justice must be transparent, but I observe that the local newspaper seems to be able to cover sheriff court cases. I have no doubt that, as with the system that operates in the existing district court, whereby all of the cases from a particular divisional area tend to be reported together, some convenient arrangement can be made.
The deciding issue, however, is the numbers. As was said, there were 600 cases in Rutherglen court in the course of a year. It can be assumed that the alternative disposals that are now available to prosecutors will result in a 20 per cent reduction, which would bring that number down to around 500 cases, many of which would be dealt with by letter pleas. Further, the papers that we received today indicate that only two trials operate at a sitting of the district court. The numbers alone justify the proposed action.
That is the basis of my determination.
The committee will meet in private extremely briefly, simply to agree to defer consideration of an item.
Meeting continued in private until 13:55.