District Courts
Our first item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on motion S1M-1404, in the name of Phil Gallie, on district courts, and two amendments to the motion.
I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Phil Gallie to speak to and move the motion.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
This is the 21st century and Scotland has its own Parliament with clear responsibility for administering and managing its own justice affairs, but where are we? Perhaps we are where we would expect to be: we have a Liberal-Labour governing body in Edinburgh and a Labour Government at Westminster whose commitment and track record on law and order issues can be described only as abysmal. Events over the past two or three years bear true witness to the charge of their being the criminal's friend, which has been reborn.
Today we face an unprecedented situation. Convicted criminals escape sentence, walking free from the court in Glasgow, escaping justice, creating anger and resentment among their victims and disillusioning those who had faith in our once-renowned justice system.
Those who are charged with relatively serious offences arrive at court, as summoned, find the doors locked and, at that point, are considered to have paid their debt to society. Many have gained from their alleged misdeeds, but many have lost. The losers are the victims who have been robbed, burgled, assaulted and intimidated and who have lost their claims for criminal injury compensation. Minister, what action will the Executive take to compensate those who have been the victims of crime when their alleged attackers or those who have breached their security have not been challenged in the courts? I have no great expectation of a positive response, given the total offloading of responsibility that we have witnessed to date. For many victims, it may be more important that the disruption and their pain and anxiety have been disregarded.
The losers are everyone in society who believes that the justice system exists to protect them, to maintain acceptable standards and to secure the interests of those who respect their neighbours and want to live in peace in their communities.
The losers are the police. Strathclyde police has built up successes over recent years, by securing a reduction in crime and an increase in detection rates, despite a swingeing decrease in numbers since Labour came to power. Just a few months ago, there were 350 fewer officers.
The level of morale among those who work hard to maintain public control and interest in, at times, extremely unpleasant and dangerous circumstances must be blown apart by the current situation in Glasgow. It must make many officers wonder why they bother, given the political ineptitude that has allowed convicted and alleged criminals, whom the police have worked so hard to bring to justice, to be put back on the streets. The present situation further overstretches the police, resulting in a poorer service, increased anxiety for the public and comfort for the criminal.
Labour, which is in control of Glasgow City Council, and the Lib-Lab Executive in Edinburgh have allowed hundreds—no, I am wrong, thousands—of villains to walk away from their misdeeds. At my last count, more than 4,500 cases have been abandoned to date.
I have a quick question for you. You mention thousands of villains, but how do we know that they are villains if they have not been tried in court?
Many of them have been tried and convicted, but because the court doors are shut when they come along to face up to their convictions, they are turned away. Those people are villains and they have got away with it. There are others who are alleged villains—I use the word "alleged" carefully—but I make no apology for referring to villains walking free, because that is precisely what is happening. I would like to think, Pauline, that you will chastise your minister and those in Glasgow City Council for a situation that you must feel threatens the people whom you represent.
Unofficially, the Scottish Police Federation condemns the strike and the Executive's inability to resolve it. It considers that court workers should be under the same constraints as the police and, therefore, unable to strike. It is frustrating enough when alleged criminals walk free due to lack of evidence, clever manipulation of the system or the failure, for no explained reason, of the procurator fiscal service to press charges. We noted the latter yesterday, when we discussed the sad events that surrounded the Chhokar trial. However, it is a slap in the face for the police when those whom they consider to be criminals walk out of the court due to industrial action that is beyond the control of the police.
Life for the police has been made more difficult already, thanks to the over-hasty incorporation of the European convention on human rights. Time and time again, the ECHR interferes with Scotland's long-standing justice system. The Executive, in the guise of those who were Labour ministers and MPs in the Westminster Parliament, was well warned about the effects of the ECHR, but chose to ignore the advice of senior members of the judiciary. People in Scotland are paying the price for that.
My point about the ECHR has been made many times before. I suppose Mr Gallie is aware that the United Kingdom has been signed up to the ECHR for many years. The question is whether you can make ECHR rights effective in Scots law. That is why we made its provisions enforceable under our own law. Does Mr Gallie recognise that?
I recognise that my party was committed to the principles of the ECHR, but it was careful not to incorporate the convention into our law. The Conservative Government followed the guidelines of the ECHR, but it did not take on board its stringent requirements. The Westminster Parliament imposed incorporation of the ECHR on this Parliament and on Scotland, making compliance mandatory. In my view, and in that of many who serve in the judiciary, that was brought about far too hastily.
The ECHR has also made life more difficult for the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal service. Given such problems, the judicial system and Scottish society need the present situation like sound government needs a Lib-Lab pact.
The Conservative motion offers a way forward for the longer term that would ensure that this diabolical situation never recurs. I ask the minister to drop his amendment, as it provides no solutions but offers a flattering and less than honest assessment of the circumstances. The only short-term solution proposed by the Executive is a pious appeal to call off the industrial action. We add our voice that that call, but where are the other options?
The SNP amendment deserves only brief comment as it is a wishy-washy call for speedy resolution and for more reports and discussions. It offers no suggestions on how to achieve a resolution.
We have enough reports in the Scottish Parliament to paper the entire road system in Scotland. We need action, not discussion. I would have expected any party that considers itself to be a serious Opposition to put up useful recommendations for a way out of this mess.
Will the member give way?
Perhaps Christine Grahame will give us some ideas.
You know very well, Phil, that a report is in hand, as we were told about the on-going review of district courts at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on 22 May. I believe that that report is in its interim stage and will be available in the spring, which is why the SNP addresses that matter in its amendment.
We do not need reports at the present time. We are in a desperate situation; something has got to be done. You may be prepared to wait till the spring, but I can tell you that the Conservatives are not. We want action and we want action now. That is a ministerial responsibility.
Will you—
No. I am running out of time and cannot take another intervention.
The national Government was quick to respond to the petrol fiasco. It was able to identify means of overcoming any further action. The Scottish Executive has got to come up with something to deal with the current situation, the circumstances of which are similar. What steps is the Executive taking to divert cases and put them into a state of suspension for the time being? What thought has been given to that? If some form of emergency legislation is required, the Conservatives would certainly give their total co-operation to any attempts to overcome the present difficulty.
Will Mr Gallie give way?
I do not think that the Presiding Officer will allow me to give way, as I have already exceeded the time allowed for my speech.
That is right, Mr Gallie.
I apologise for that, Presiding Officer.
I sympathise with Iain Gray, who has inherited this situation with his new ministerial post. However, his boss, Jim Wallace, has had plenty of notice about the looming chaos. The Scottish Executive was given two months' warning before the strike, but it chose to do absolutely nothing. The result of total inaction is that by 24 November this year, 4,581 cases that had been due to be heard in Glasgow district court had been dropped or shelved, and further disruption has been guaranteed.
There has been plenty of warning to the Executive, but ministers have sat on their hands and buried their heads in the sand. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say. I suggest that he forgets about his amendment and addresses the real issues.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses its concern over the detrimental effects of the current strike being undertaken by UNISON members in Glasgow District Court on the administration of justice and calls upon the Scottish Executive to do everything in its power to resolve the current situation and in the longer term to transfer the responsibility for administration of district courts to the Scottish Courts Administration and to seek to negotiate a no strike agreement with court staff to put them on a par with police and prison officers.
Before I call the minister to speak, I want to remind members of something. I did not want to interrupt you, Mr Gallie, but there were rather too many yous running round the chamber again this morning. All remarks must be addressed through the chair. You just have to remember that, in this chamber, you is me.
I welcome the chance to clear up some of the misleading comments about the situation in Glasgow district court that have been flying around in the press and, I regret to say, in Phil Gallie's speech this morning. We need some clarity. I want to say something about the current industrial action, about how the courts are meant to work and about our review of the district courts.
I will begin with the Unison strike. Unison has deliberately targeted the busiest of our district courts. That is unfortunate and disruptive and is a matter for profound regret. We do not condone it. However, it is a dispute about pay between Unison members and their local authority employers. The Executive has provided local authorities with significant resources, providing a real increase in grant support this year and an additional £1.2 billion over the next three years. That amounts to a 10.5 per cent increase over those three years.
It is for local authorities to decide how much to offer their employees and it is for the unions to negotiate on their members' behalf. It is not for the Executive to interfere or intervene. However, I note that two trade unions, the Transport and General Workers Union and the GMB, which have a long and proud history of successful representation of local government workers, have accepted the deal offered by local authorities.
Does the minister recognise that negotiations have been concluded in Aberdeen on behalf of all staff and that the local authority has reached a separate settlement with Unison. Will he comment on that?
I recognise that that has happened, but I would not care to comment on it for the reason that I have just given. I note that negotiations continued yesterday and I sincerely hope that progress is being made.
I want to make four points about the strike. First, it is localised. The focus has been on Glasgow, and it is in Glasgow that business is being disrupted seriously. I agree with Mr Gallie's estimate that around 4,500 cases have been affected so far. Secondly, most of the crimes of the greatest concern to the public and to victims of crime, such as assault and theft, are common law crimes. They are not time barred and will not automatically fall.
Thirdly, if business is lost as a result of time bars, it will mostly relate to statutory offences, such as non-payment of television licences, carrying on activities without an appropriate permit, or vehicle excise duty offences. Those are usually regulatory matters and those offences have no victim, in the sense of a person who has been physically hurt or has suffered loss to property.
Fourthly, it is, by definition, the less serious cases that are being disrupted. More serious business goes to the sheriff courts or the High Court. I am not saying for a moment that the cases that are being disrupted are not serious. The disruption of justice is always a serious matter, but we must place it in context.
If someone is taken in by the police on a Friday or Saturday night after creating a breach that involves violence and is due to appear in court on the following Monday, will the case against that individual be heard again if the doors are locked when they turn up at court?
If the case is a common law case, it is not time barred and will not fall automatically because the court is closed on the day that has been arranged.
I would like to reply to a point that Mr Gallie made in his opening speech. Around 1 per cent of district court convictions lead to custody. For Mr Gallie to talk in the media, as he did some weeks ago, of hundreds of villains walking free or, as he did this morning, of thousands of villains walking free, is disingenuous hyperbole at best.
I will now consider the Executive's role. What have we done and what can we do? First, the Crown has done everything in its power to prevent cases from being abandoned or lost as a result of the industrial action. Although only Glasgow district court has been singled out for indefinite strike action, Unison's days of all-out strike have had an impact elsewhere. In Edinburgh, it has been possible to double up the courts and keep them open. Not one case has been dropped. I am afraid that similar efforts in Glasgow were deliberately frustrated.
Secondly, Scottish ministers have a power under the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 to intervene in the interests of efficiency by appointing stipendiary magistrates. However, that would be of no help while key supporting staff are still on strike.
Thirdly, we could introduce emergency legislation, but to what effect? Such legislation was introduced in 1979, but that was to deal with a national strike involving the High Court and sheriff courts—a more serious matter than this local dispute and one that involved civil business. Such a course of action would be unprecedented and, I would argue, disproportionate when only one local court is affected. In any case, we could not outlaw industrial action in the courts and we could not necessarily prevent cases from falling if a protracted strike were to produce excessive delay and associated ECHR challenges. Any objective and clear-sighted examination of the matter suggests that the likeliest solution lies in the swift resolution of the dispute or, failing that, an agreement that justice be exempted from the impact of the dispute.
Looking beyond the current situation, the Conservative motion calls on us to transfer administration of the district courts out of local authority hands. I would like to say something about current arrangements and about our review of the district courts.
The District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 replaced a variety of local courts with the new district courts. The district courts are intentionally distinctive and reflect a careful and deliberate balancing of roles and responsibilities between central and local government. The role of Scottish ministers is essentially to do with judicial appointments. Under the 1975 act, local authorities are responsible for providing
"suitable and sufficient premises and facilities for the purposes of the District Court".
The 1975 act also established local justice committees. One of their independent statutory duties is to assist or advise local authorities on the administration of the district courts.
Local justice, delivered by partnership between central and local government, is no accident, but a deliberately conceived part of our system of justice. It is therefore not something to be abolished lightly, on a whim or for reasons of political expediency, but it bears full and proper examination rather more extensive than can be given in a one-hour debate. That is why we announced a review of the district courts during debates on the Bail, Judicial Appointments, etc (Scotland) Act 2000. Since then, there have been a number of meetings and we hope to issue a consultation paper in the new year.
The review will address a full range of issues: the powers of the court, the handling of business and the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. It will consider afresh the respective responsibilities and roles of central and local government. We have undertaken that the review will be objective, will not take a position and will be a catalyst for discussion of the issues.
In short, we will consider all the options, including those that have been raised today. Our eventual proposals will be a serious attempt to secure the long-term interests of local justice rather than a short-term, opportunistic response to an industrial dispute.
I move amendment S1M-1404.2, to leave out from "and calls" to end and insert
"; recognises that the Crown has worked to protect business in District Courts and that this has proved successful except in the case of Glasgow, and urges the suspension of further action affecting the courts."
I am sure that all members present recognise that district courts perform an important function in our justice system. The present situation at Glasgow district court, with cases being delayed, dropped or shelved, is unacceptable.
This is the fourth week that Glasgow district court has been subject to industrial action. In that time, it has become apparent that no one seems to be willing to take responsibility for the shambles that that industrial action has caused. At the very top, we have Jim Wallace stating in the press:
"The disruption itself is due to a dispute between local authority employers and a union over pay."
A spokesperson for the Scottish Executive stated:
"it is a matter for the Crown Office to decide how cases are brought before the courts. The dispute is a matter for local government and the employees."
However, the Crown Office says:
"The council is responsible for the running of the court. We are a customer of the court."
Everybody says that it is the local authority's responsibility, but it says:
"This is a national dispute . . . Any decisions on cases in the courts are taken by the Procurator Fiscal".
However, the office of the procurator fiscal in Glasgow says:
"We are referring all media calls to the Crown Office".
Nobody seems to be willing to take responsibility.
Does Mr Matheson accept that he has just illustrated perfectly the point that I made: that this is a shared responsibility?
I accept that it is a shared responsibility. Every one of the bodies to which I referred has a role in the running of the district courts. However, ultimate responsibility for the justice system lies with the Executive. The minister cannot ignore that.
I take on board the minister's comments about cases being moved up to the sheriff court. On Monday, I was at Glasgow sheriff court as a guest of the Glasgow Bar Association, as was Pauline McNeill. The custody court started 40 minutes late and was likely to go on until 7 o'clock at night because of a lack of resources. Papers did not arrive in time and solicitors were left waiting to find out what their clients had been charged with. Some solicitors did not know what their clients had been charged with until they turned up in the dock. It is okay to say that we should move cases up, but if we do that we must ensure that there are adequate resources to deal with them.
This is a localised problem that has resulted from a national dispute. As I have said, ultimately the buck stops with the Executive.
I am sure that it comes as no surprise to anybody that the Conservative party has sought yet again to attack local government employees' entitlement to take industrial action. There may be members present who have taken industrial action since anti-trade union legislation was introduced under the previous Conservative Government. They will know that local government employees do not take industrial action lightly. Given the Tories' track record on the rights of workers to take industrial action, it comes as no surprise that today they have chosen to attack those rights once again.
Will the member give way?
My time is limited, but I will take a quick intervention from Phil Gallie.
Does the member agree that it is right that the police should not take industrial action? Does he recognise that court staff are also important to the justice system?
The people who are taking industrial action at Glasgow district court are local government employees who provide an administrative function to the court. On that basis, they are entitled to take industrial action if they regard that as appropriate.
We find ourselves in this position because of the gradual erosion of the rights of local government employees and, in particular, because of the gradual erosion of their wages when compared with those of similar workers in the private sector. Over the past five years the wages of local government employees have been eroded, so they have a lot of ground to make up. It is all very well for the minister to say that additional money is available this year, but it does not address the on-going problem of low levels of pay. The dispute illustrates the invaluable role that the workers involved play in the courts. They deserve an increase in their pay.
Given that a review is currently under way, it would be inappropriate to start making decisions about how we should change the district court system. However, an interim report should be published so that we can see what point the review has reached and what recommendations it may already have arrived at. That might allow us to address some of the problems that exist in the present system.
I say to Mr Gallie that that is a genuine attempt to deal with this problem. I am afraid that, although he has called for action now, he has failed to come up with ideas for steps that should be taken. We have become used to that from the Conservative party.
This is a national dispute. Our focus should be not on the rights of local government employees to take industrial action, but on ensuring that we find a national solution to this problem. The buck passing must stop now, and ministers and the other authorities involved must address the issue urgently. Public confidence in our justice system is being eroded. It is for the Executive to ensure that that stops and that this national dispute is resolved speedily.
I move amendment S1M-1404.1, to leave out from "detrimental" to end and insert
"effect of the current industrial action on the operation of the Glasgow District Court; calls upon the Scottish Executive to ensure a speedy resolution of the dispute and, in the light of the current situation, further calls upon the Scottish Executive to publish an interim report from the current review of district courts in order that public confidence in the administration and operation of our judicial system is restored and to ensure that this report is made available to the Parliament."
Despite the somewhat tabloid nature of the motion and the worse than tabloid nature of Mr Gallie's opening speech, the motion raises important issues that ought to be addressed and aired in Parliament.
It is important to record that the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 provides for each local authority to have a district court. Since reorganisation in 1996, many local authorities have had several district courts, but it appears that there is just one within the boundaries of City of Glasgow Council.
The Scottish courts website says unequivocally:
"There is no provision for a central organisation to co-ordinate the District Courts".
The only umbrella organisation appears to be the District Courts Association, which was founded in 1980. It has provided a valuable focal point, particularly for the discussion of common problems that district courts encounter. It also acts as a consultative body.
It is clear that, in law, the buck does not stop with the Scottish Executive. It is not entirely clear where the buck stops; that is the key point that we need to clarify in the review that Jim Wallace has initiated. I trust that, when the review is concluded, we will have a much clearer and more acceptable position than exists at present.
Quite rightly, the motion refers to Glasgow, because only Glasgow district court has experienced difficulties over the past four weeks. As was said earlier, it is the busiest court in Scotland. However, I took exception to Phil Gallie saying that every member would have encountered the problem of trials not proceeding. That is not the case. The difficulties are confined to Glasgow. It is not right to give the misleading impression that the whole of Scotland is affected by this problem.
As the minister said, common law crimes are not time barred. I would like to provide members with an anecdote from my experience at the Anniesland by-election.
I made it quite clear that our focus is on Glasgow district court. However, we are concerned that the wrong message is being put out throughout Scotland—that the judicial system can fall apart. This issue affects everyone in Scotland, but it affects people in Glasgow directly.
The dispute is localised to Glasgow; it does not affect the whole of Scotland. There is a potential for it to do so, but it is not doing so at present.
I will come back to the point about common law crimes not being time barred. While canvassing during the Anniesland by-election, I met two elderly spinsters who had been attacked and robbed in their own home. They said, "The individual responsible will never come to trial because Glasgow district court is letting all sorts of people off." I said, "No. It is more than likely that that individual will come to trial because common law crimes are not time barred." "No," said the elderly couple, "We have read it in the newspapers. We know that the individual concerned is never going to come to trial." If what we say about the law is misleading and if the way we report crime is misleading, we will spread fear of crime in the community. That fear should not exist, because it is based on false assumptions.
I agree that the Unison action in Glasgow is unfortunate. Unison will lose public sympathy if the problems continue. I need no lectures on the problems of low pay, as my part of Scotland has endemic low pay. For many years there was non-funding of pay rises in local government by central Government. The Executive is addressing that this year. The serious problems of low pay should be dealt with, but the negotiation is between the local authority and the union concerned. It does not involve the Executive.
It would be helpful if Iain Gray published some of the figures he read out. A description of what the 4,581 cases involve would be especially helpful. That would help to restore public confidence, which I am afraid Mr Gallie's rhetoric undermines.
I will devote some of my time to setting out some facts, because there is an astonishing lack of knowledge about how Glasgow district court functions. That has been manifest this morning.
Glasgow district court may have only one courthouse, but it operates eight courts—four stipendiary courts and four lay courts. The stipendiary magistrates have the same sentencing powers as sheriffs under summary jurisdiction. Custodial sentences are not 1 per cent. That is the Scottish average, but in Glasgow district court the sentences are in many cases custodial, especially for those appearing from custody. At Glasgow district court it is possible, under summary jurisdiction, to get 11 months' imprisonment—nine months' imprisonment under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 for police assault, with add-ons for the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2000. That has happened.
Glasgow district court deals with much more complex and serious cases than do other district courts. The minister has dealt with the volume of cases. That outlines the extent of the problem. It is not a normal district court. Many of the cases that go through Glasgow district court would, in other jurisdictions, go before a sheriff. It has been defined in the past as justice on the cheap, but it is not; it is a highly professional operation and it must be acknowledged as being highly professional. That is why we suggest—I hope that this will be the case at the end of the review—that it be dealt with by the Scottish Courts Administration rather than be left in the hands of the local authority.
Iain Gray made several points about the cases that are going to be lost. He is correct about there being no time bar on common law cases. It would be no great loss to mankind if the vehicle excise cases fell, but because of the strike many drivers who would have been disqualified for motoring offences under the totting-up procedure will not be disqualified.
What will happen because of the court's failure to operate means inquiries? People who are not paying fines are called before a means inquiry board. The instalments might be reduced or a custodial alternative stipulated in the event of subsequent failure to pay. What will happen to those cases? What is happening with fines that are not being paid? People who offend are not usually well organised. They may have the money to pay a weekly instalment that week; they are not likely to have it at the end of the strike. Will they end up going to prison because of the city council's failure to operate a court? That must be decided.
Major aspects of this matter have clearly not been thought through because there is a basic misunderstanding of what goes on in Glasgow district court. As I have said before, it is not a typical jurisdiction so it requires special consideration.
Phil Gallie dealt with the matter of police morale in relation to the cases that are being lost. That is disturbing, but I am more concerned about the morale of the criminal classes. They exhibit a sensitivity and street wisdom that is lacking in the deliberations that I have heard this morning. They know that if there is no court they can carry on shoplifting—and that is what they are doing. There is clear evidence—it is not just apocryphal—that that is going on at the moment. The word has got out; they know exactly what is happening. That is why this matter must be addressed.
It may well be, as Iain Gray said, an employer-employee dispute. Would he be sitting on his hands if this was a health service dispute—or would he be taking action? He would be taking action.
Many issues arise out of the strike, but there is clearly a major misunderstanding about the nature of Glasgow district court. Until that is resolved in the minds of those who are speaking, I fear that there will be no early resolution of this problem.
If nothing else, the dispute between Unison and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has reminded us all of the existence of the district courts and the need for their reform. We know from previous discussions in this Parliament that there is to be a review of district courts. That is much needed and s welcome.
It is a shame that our discussions on the lower courts have centred on an industrial dispute. I want to be clear about what Mr Gallie is saying. He seems to be saying that it is a ministerial responsibility to resolve industrial disputes. If Phil Gallie thinks that that is the role of the Executive, where does that leave us when we come to other industrial disputes that will inevitably take place in Scotland?
It is a ministerial responsibility to uphold the law; that is not happening at present.
Phil Gallie is saying that now, but it is not what he said earlier.
Two of the unions are satisfied with the pay offer that COSLA has made. Unison, the union concerned, has stated on the record that it recognises the need to cause minimal disruption to the public. As Michael Matheson said, no union takes strike action lightly.
Unison has, in all fairness, abided by the very stringent laws that the Tories introduced in the 1980s, which require the union to notify the employer in advance of strike action and to specify the date and how long it will last. The law also requires that the majority of the workers show their support for such action in a ballot. Given that heavy legal burden on the union, questions need to be asked about why there was no preparation by the employer. To that extent, I share the concerns that have been expressed about what is happening in our justice system. It cannot continue.
That is where my common ground with Mr Gallie ends. I believe that the ability to withdraw labour in a collective dispute with an employer on pay and conditions is a fundamental right. We have removed that right, but only for very good reasons. We must be careful. Although we do not have strike agreements for the police, it must be recognised that there are other mechanisms. The workers we are talking about today suffer from low pay. That distinction must be recognised.
Is Phil Gallie saying that he wants to extend the no-strike agreement to nurses in the health service because it is an essential service? He should clarify the Conservatives' position on the issue. I worry that if he had his way he would not allow any trade union to have a strike agreement. It is ironic that the Conservatives supported people's right to bring the roads to a standstill in the fuel dispute. They were not concerned about the chaos that it caused.
Contingency arrangements should be in place for all industrial disputes so that there is minimal disruption to the public. The employer that must address that, not the Executive or Parliament.
We need a serious debate on the reform of the district courts that is not marred by the atmosphere of an industrial dispute. People have serious concerns about the justice system and the people who operate in it. For example, decisions are taken behind closed doors in the district courts and are not published; there are concerns about the ECHR; and there is an issue about whether it is right for local authorities both to collect fines and to administer the district courts. I look forward to that debate when we have the results of the review, so that we can make our district courts as efficient as possible.
It is one of the Parliament's strengths that debates which have a spurious basis—such as this one, as Mr Gallie's motion demonstrates—manage to achieve some balance by the end. Some speeches, such as Bill Aitken's account of his experience of the courts, were fairly knowledgeable. They made it reasonably clear that we are dealing with a significant, if localised, issue against a background of the need to review the longer-term future of the district courts. The district courts structure was laid down in 1975, retained by the Conservatives during their 18 years in power and has continued under this Parliament's jurisdiction.
It is also clear that responsibility for the present situation in the district courts lies with the local authorities, not with ministers. Ministerial responsibility is limited merely to the responsibilities of the procurator fiscal to direct where court cases go and to make the immediate arrangements for those cases.
The minister mentioned one of the main issues raised in the debate: that 1 per cent of district court convictions lead to custody. The Tories have presented us with a vision of a panoply of villains released from custody and rampaging all over Glasgow as a result of the dispute—with all the Dixon of Dock Green implications of that. However, the only ones rampaging are people who have not paid their TV licence fee or parking fines. That said, I acknowledge Bill Aitken's point that Glasgow district court is in the unique position of having stipendiary magistrates. In my time as a lawyer I appeared at Glasgow district court and formed the view that the people who come before that court are largely society's driftwood—and I use that word advisedly. Those people, who might be called society's inadequates, are different in kind from the people who come before the sheriff courts.
We must put in place long-term arrangements that will stand us in good stead. We do not have a major crisis on our hands; simply a localised and immediate problem to sort out. As a result, we should wait for the outcome of the review and deal with the matter then. As Pauline McNeill pointed out, perhaps we should consider whether we need more adequate arrangements for dealing with the consequences of industrial disputes involving the courts. However, that does not mean extending the right to prosecute people beyond the statutory time bar; that would raise all kinds of ECHR issues.
There is an ECHR element to this situation. Phil Gallie's attitude that ECHR is fine in principle but is no use when we come to the practicalities of incorporating it and acting upon it is very unsatisfactory. Indeed, we have seen that attitude several times in these debates. Glasgow district court is a local problem that should be locally resolved. After that situation is sorted out we must deal with the long-term future of the district courts.
As I have only three minutes, I will have to take my speech at breakneck speed.
As usual, Phil Gallie generated more heat than light. Although this is an industrial dispute, that does not exonerate the Executive. As Michael Matheson pointed out, the ultimate responsibility for justice in Scotland lies with the Executive and the minister. In saying that, I am not underestimating the consequences of the dispute for some of the victims.
I will touch briefly on some funding issues; in fact, I will simply refer the minister to particular columns in the Official Report. For example, he should take a look at the evidence of Helen Murray from the District Courts Association at columns 1306 and 1307 of the Official Report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee meeting of 22 May. She made it clear that the district courts are underfunded, which can only impinge on the current situation.
Phil Gallie did not address the transfer of administration; instead he lingered on more sensational issues. I respectfully suggest that that matter must be seriously addressed in the review. I reiterate Michael Matheson's point that there is merit in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's having a copy of an interim report to hand.
As for the point raised by the minister, Phil Gallie and Bill Aitken about what is happening to cases, it would be useful if the minister could write to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee giving us the facts about cases that have been affected by the dispute. If such a letter is not forthcoming, members can lodge written questions and get the answers that way. In fact, I think that it was Euan Robson who quite rightly raised the issue of getting those figures.
Bill Aitken made very fair points about automatic disqualification; indeed, I had not considered the totting-up procedure. Perhaps the minister should touch on that issue in his summing up. There might be some difficulty, however, as the procedure would apply to untried cases.
I was referring to cases for which a diet had been fixed but which had not been called. In such circumstances, the diet would fall and there would not necessarily be a trial.
I understand that and am again grateful for Bill Aitken's specific knowledge. Perhaps the minister might address that serious matter.
On continued offending, I had not actually considered the lack of a trial as a licence to proceed. If Mr Aitken has real evidence of that, he should give it to the minister and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
As I have said, it would be useful for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to see an interim report of the review. Furthermore, I want to know whether the District Courts Association—which said that it would monitor the situation—has been in touch about the number of cases in progress. It has been suggested that there has been a reduction in the amount of district court work, which was not the association's position.
The debate has been interesting and has raised many points, a frightening proportion of which were mentioned in Christine Grahame's three minutes. I will attempt to address those points at a later date.
I said that I hoped that the debate would provide some clarity. Our view is indeed clear. Where responsibilities are shared, we cannot simply talk and act as though they were not. It is for the local authorities and Unison to resolve the dispute. We have created conditions which make that possible; the budgetary plans that we announced in September are generous. We are clear that district courts are a shared responsibility of local government to provide a local, lay component to our justice system. If that is to be changed, we will change it for sound reasons of improved justice.
We await clarity on the Tories' position. Do they advance arguments of justice for their proposed changes, or is this simply one more manifestation of their unrelenting and vindictive antipathy to local government and trade unionism? The Tories propose new restrictions to prevent court staff from taking industrial action, but they must know that that is a reserved matter. Are they proposing such a move at Westminster, where it matters? Are sweeping constraints on the right to industrial action to be a manifesto commitment for the general election? Have they forgotten that similar plans in the previous Government's green paper were roundly condemned by employers' organisations as unnecessary?
Does the Labour Government intend to introduce sweeping plans to change the legislation that the minister and Pauline McNeill have said is so bad?
I confess that I fail to understand John Scott's point. The Conservatives' motion suggests that there should be a restriction on the right of court workers to take industrial action. We do not intend to introduce such a measure. My question to the Tories is whether they seriously propose that; or whether the proposal is an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to the issue du jour?
I do not belittle the cases that may be abandoned. Although I cannot give an immediate breakdown of the 4,000 cases that have been lost, I can say that in the past year, where figures are available, 44 per cent of district court cases were motoring offences; 33 per cent were miscellaneous offences; 12 per cent were crimes of dishonesty; 5 per cent were criminal damage offences; and 3 per cent were minor drugs offences. Those 4,000 cases are likely to show a similar breakdown.
To Bill Aitken, I say that although I am new to my portfolio, I know the difference between Glasgow district court and the other district courts. The available facts from past years show that, none the less, the results of proceedings in Glasgow district court—including stipendiary magistrates courts—are comparable with the old Scotland figures, with the exception that one is rather more likely to be admonished in Glasgow district court than elsewhere.
That was always the case when I was on the bench. [Laughter.]
I turn now to the consequences of the dispute for victims—the victims of crime, that is, not the victims of Bill Aitken's version of justice.
I deplore the consequences of the dispute for victims. It is small comfort that they are victims of less serious crimes. Misinformation prevails. If people have suffered personal injury—and Mr Gallie made reference to this—the criminal injuries compensation scheme is still available to them. It does not depend on prosecutions or convictions: it is a victim-led scheme. Criminal compensation orders are few in the district court.
It is simply fatuous to suggest that the Executive does not care about the victims of crime. One of my first engagements as the Deputy Minister for Justice was to speak at a victim support conference, at which founder members who have been active in the field for 15 years acknowledged that support for victims is now given priority and funding that they could never have dreamed of when they started. When Lyndsay McIntosh winds up, perhaps she can confirm that, as she was at that conference.
We will discharge our responsibilities to improve our system of justice through the forthcoming review of the district courts, and we will do that in good time. We will not allow the industrial action to result in ill-considered legislation. I hope that those who are responsible for the industrial action will recognise the trust that is vested in them to deliver effective local justice in Scotland. I also hope that, in closing, Lyndsay McIntosh will demonstrate how the Tories' proposals would genuinely contribute to tomorrow's justice, not just to today's headlines.
Although I have sheaves of notes, I shall try to gallop through the points that were raised in the debate. I regret that the debate has been short, as more members may have wanted to speak. Perhaps the Executive will return to the subject in future.
That seems a curious point to make, given that this is a Tory debate and that the length of the debate was entirely that party's choice.
We have a limited amount of time and we wanted to highlight the issue. Other issues are important too, but this one had to be raised today. Perhaps the Executive will return to the matter in a debate of its own.
Phil Gallie commented that, because of the dispute, the Executive and COSLA—not COSLA as such, but Unison—have ended up appearing to be the criminal's friends. We must all address that. The alleged criminals—admittedly not murderers, but people who should have been sentenced by the courts—are walking away because the court doors are closed. The people for whom we should have a real concern are the victims of crime. Phil also mentioned police morale. The police are doing a very difficult job and it is a kick in the teeth for them that their work does not result in appropriate court decisions.
Pauline McNeill asked why people are—in perhaps emotive language—termed villains. What about sentence deferrals and people who should have returned to the court after their deferred sentence? They are waiting for the sentence that was going to be handed down, but the door is shut. Where are they? What is going to happen?
In his opening remarks, the minister regretted the dispute. I accept that. He highlighted the fact that Glasgow district court is the busiest district court in Scotland and that it is not the same as the others—and I shall return to Bill Aitken's contribution on that in a minute. Glasgow's is the busiest district court in Europe; it goes like a fair. It goes so fast, people's heads spin. Michael Matheson commented on the fact that papers are missing and that people do not know what they are appearing for. It is chaotic.
I was talking about Glasgow sheriff court.
I appreciate that, and you made it clear in your speech that you were there at the invitation of the Glasgow Bar Association. However, the district court is no different: it still goes like a fair. I know—I have worked in a district court.
The other part of that point is that the district courts are in the power of the Scottish courts administration. Christine Grahame and Michael Matheson commented on the upcoming review. I have taken part in it in my own district court area. I attended a meeting at which we were asked for our tuppence worth on it. We are interested in what is likely to happen. Michael, you highlighted the issue of buck passing and were entirely right to do so. We will have no disagreement on that. Whoever is responsible—and we may disagree on who that is—it must stop. We welcome the review.
Euan, you commented on the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975. Phyllis Hands, the secretary of the District Courts Association, says that it issues good practice guidelines for the running of the district courts, but that they are not mandatory. The association is generally of the opinion that Glasgow district court should not have been shut. Phyllis Hands is well known to me. She used to clerk for me.
The other item that you lifted, Euan, was the no time bar. I suppose that that is a welcome relief for some people. We are not talking about people who are going to be found guilty of serious crime, but it is not strictly true to say that only minor offences come before the district court. In my day, I sat on a case that went to trial, in which a lady had been kicked severely by two women while she was four months pregnant. I do not think that anyone would call a serious beating such as that a minor offence.
Bill, I come to your points. Yes, indeed—Glasgow district court operates eight courts. You highlighted the issues of the drivers and the totting up—something that those of us who have sat on the district courts will know only too well. There are also the means inquiry board cases. What is going to happen to those people? They come—some of them almost ready to pay their money—but the door is shut. As you highlighted, what chance do we have of collecting the uncollected fines? I have already commented on the morale of the police.
Pauline, you mentioned the review. We all look forward to the report. I agree that an interim paper on the review would be much welcomed.
Does that mean that Lyndsay McIntosh will support our amendment?
No. We do not support the SNP amendment, but an interim paper is a welcome suggestion that the minister might take further.
Pauline, you also highlighted the fact that notice is necessary before strike action can be taken. That is precisely the point: notification of the action was received. Why did not you do something?
You are using too many yous again.
I apologise, Presiding Officer. I am time barred—I can see it now.
On the idea of our antipathy to trade unions, I say to Mr Gray that I was a shop steward. Our original motion talked about negotiating a no strike deal. I know that some people do not like that idea, but that negotiation would also take account of the low pay situation.