Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Conservation Bodies) Amendment Order 2013 (SSI 2013/289)
Under item 3, we will consider three negative instruments that we previously agreed to defer. Time presses.
Act of Sederunt (Commissary Business) 2013 (SSI 2013/291)
The Act of Sederunt (Commissary Business) 2013 removes sheriff courts that are closing from the list of places where commissary business can be conducted. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is content with the instrument. Do members have any comments on it?
I am not content with the closures.
I know, but we are not talking about them. The instrument is a technical thing.
Drugs Courts (Scotland) Amendment Order 2013 (SSI 2013/302)
The third instrument is the Drugs Courts (Scotland) Amendment Order 2013, which removes the requirement for a dedicated drugs court in the sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is content with the order.
Convener—
Two members want to speak. I knew that there would be comments. It is all right—I was alert to that.
This is a backward step. The drugs court in Fife has been a success, and I know that there is local opposition to its closure. I resist the order.
I am concerned about the order, on which no impact assessment was carried out. The sheriff principal, as is his duty, has said that it would be good to close the drugs court because of capacity issues. Have those capacity issues arisen because the drugs court sits in Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy sheriff courts? At present, there is not enough capacity because of the planned closure of the nearby Cupar sheriff and justice of the peace court. It seems to me that the proposal has been made for all the wrong reasons.
I am hugely supportive of drugs courts, but I read today—this is not in the papers, and is separate from the issues relating to the Fife drugs court—that there is a high degree of recidivism in those courts, that 70 to 80 per cent of those who had taken part went back, and that the courts did not work. I am sad to report that. I have been at drugs courts where the sheriff and support teams had not been successful in the way that one would have hoped. The issues are very complex.
I disagree with Margaret Mitchell. I do not think that she has evidence—although I am not saying that she is saying that there is evidence—that the proposal has anything to do with the closure of Cupar sheriff court.
I do not want to publicise The Herald—although I have done it—but I think that a Government response gave the percentage of recidivism in relation to drugs, which I am sad to say was very high for what is a dedicated court.
The rationale for having a dedicated court is to deal with a specific and extremely complex issue. Recidivism and regressing into offending behaviour that is connected to addiction issues must be recognised as a part of that. I, too, am pained at any closure of such a specialist court.
I do not know whether Roddy Campbell said what I am about to say—it is a similar point. I reiterate that the policy note says:
We have all had our say.
The note says:
That is all on the record, including my bit about recidivism—I meant recidivism in relation to drugs and not to crime per se. I have to say that I was impressed when I saw Glasgow drugs court years ago.
The rest of the committee does not have the figures to analyse that the convener has. I know that the community justice authority and the council in the Fife drugs court area have concerns about the proposal.
I read the figures in The Herald. I have put a caveat on them, but I think that 60 to 70 per cent of those involved were back on drugs. Members can check that out and hold me to account next week if I have misquoted the figures.
Members are not content. We have to report on the order by 2 December, so we will do a quick report, which members can all see before it is issued.
I think that we are against the order.
Do we not need to vote?
This is not a voting item. We are reporting to the Subordinate Legislation Committee—I know that that is no longer that committee’s name. Some members are not content and others are; we will just do a brief report. Everything that members have said is on the record.
If statistics are available, it would be helpful to have them.
The trouble will be in getting statistics to members within the deadline, but we will endeavour to get statistics, particularly on the reference that I made—I ask the clerks to check that out for me, please, as I do not want to be maligned. We will make a short report on the instrument.
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No 6) (Miscellaneous) 2013 (SSI 2013/294)
Item 4 is on an act of sederunt that is not subject to any parliamentary procedure. It is before us because the DPLR Committee reported it for an incorrect reference to another instrument. In responding to that point, the Lord President’s private office confirmed that it plans to correct the error at the first available opportunity. As members have no comments, are we content to endorse the DPLR Committee’s conclusions?