Justice of the Peace Courts (Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway) etc Amendment Order 2019 [Draft]
Welcome to the Justice Committee’s 12th meeting in 2019. We have received apologies from Shona Robison. We welcome back to the committee Bill Kidd, who is substituting for her.
Agenda item 1 is an evidence session on an affirmative instrument. I welcome Humza Yousaf, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and his Scottish Government officials, Walter Drummond-Murray, who is a courts and tribunals policy officer, and Jo-Anne Tinto, who is from the directorate for legal services.
I refer members to paper 1, which is a note by the clerk. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.
Thank you, and good morning to you all. The order that is before the committee today delivers the relocation of the justice of the peace court in Coatbridge to a new facility a mile and a half away in Airdrie. The building in Coatbridge is no longer suitable; one response to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s consultation described it as a building that
“had its best days ... in the last century.”
The proposed facility in Airdrie will provide a modern, new building that will offer a far better experience for court users and staff. The new building is across the road from the existing sheriff court and offers the opportunity for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to deliver more efficiently, as the same group of staff supports both courts and suffers inconvenience in shuttling between buildings. Additionally, there will be a small saving of £11,000 a year in reduced rents, rates and service charges. No posts will be lost as a result of the relocation.
Although parliamentary approval is required, I view this as a predominantly operational matter and a decision for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, so that it can make the most efficient use of resources. The proposal enjoys the support of the SCTS board and the Lord President. I am happy to lend my support in bringing the instrument to Parliament for consideration.
Do members have any comments or questions?
Good morning, cabinet secretary. The court is located in my constituency, so you would expect me to ask a couple of questions. Committee paper 1 states:
“Whilst the statutory obligations require a high level of consultation and consideration, in this case the proposal is fairly modest, and entails moving Coatbridge Justice of the Peace Court 1.4 miles”.
I understand that the SCTS’s decision is based on sound evidence. I have not had a lot of representation on the issue. What level of consultation was undertaken?
It would be for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to answer more widely. However, a number of organisations fed into its consultation. To give you some reassurance—I expect that, as the local MSP, you want reassurance—a number of factors were taken into consideration in making the decision. Given its previous experience of court closures and relocations, the SCTS looked at the bus and train transport links between Coatbridge and Airdrie. It took into account what the effect would be on court business if the court were to move, to ensure that any of your constituents who were going through JP court business would not face delays.
All those factors were considered. It is probably worth pointing out that Victim Support Scotland was one of the organisations that gave input, so potential victims who may well be constituents of yours were represented.
There was universal support for the proposal. A fair number of factors were considered as part of the conversation to relocate.
Thank you. I am in general agreement with the proposal. There is no doubt that the court in Coatbridge is situated very close to Airdrie. I am surprised that a move of 1.4 miles is involved; I would have guessed the distance to be less than that. I do not think that the impact will be massive, and I agree with the assessment of the condition of the building. I grew up in the street adjacent to the court so I know the building well; it is a historic landmark, but it is probably not the best when it comes to functioning as a modern office and court building.
Airdrie is a busy sheriff court and Coatbridge justice of the peace court is very busy. Did you get any figures on what the impact would be on Airdrie?
Yes. The impact was absolutely part of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s consideration. The SCTS is confident that there will be no adverse effect upon performance at the sheriff court. In fact, the new facility has a provision for vulnerable witnesses that will also be available for cases in the sheriff court, so the new facility will help with some of the court business in Airdrie sheriff court as well as the relocated work from the Coatbridge JP court. No adverse effect on performance is foreseen, but clearly the impact was part of the SCTS’s consideration and conversation.
Is there any anticipated adverse effect on staff? Are all staff expected to move to the new premises?
It is quite the opposite to an adverse effect. Some staff were experiencing inconvenience; I know that it is a move of only 1.4 miles, but as you can imagine, for staff who shuttled between those two buildings the new facility’s location adjacent to the sheriff court is very handy. As I mentioned, no job losses are anticipated as a result of the move.
As a member for Central Scotland and a native of Coatbridge, I would add only that I am aware that the building is very old, so the move to a new and better facility is welcome. I have not heard any comments opposing the move.
Agenda item 2 is formal consideration of motion S5M-16769. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered and reported on the instrument and had no comments on it.
Motion moved,
That the Justice Committee recommends that the Justice of the Peace Courts (Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway) etc. Amendment Order 2019 [draft] be approved.—[Humza Yousaf]
Motion agreed to.
That concludes our consideration of the instrument. The committee’s report will note and confirm the outcome of the debate. Is the committee content to delegate authority to me as convener to clear the final draft of the report?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending and I suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a change of officials.
10:08 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance