Hansard

Amendment 203 is a minor, technical amendment. It replaces the reference to "paragraph" in section 54(7)(a) with a reference to "subsection". The intention is to ensure that the day that the Scottish ministers specify by order under section 54 will have two purposes. First, it will be the day on which existing JP appointments come to an end and, secondly, it will be the day on which existing JPs who are entitled to automatic reappointment take up office under the new arrangements for JPs. Amendment 211 makes a minor, technical amendment to section 61(12). It serves the same purpose as amendment 203 but relates to stipendiary magistrates rather than JPs.Amendments 204 and 212 are minor, technical drafting amendments, which are designed to remove any doubt about the operation of sections 54 and 61.The bill changes the terms of appointment of both justices of the peace and stipendiary magistrates. For the changes to take effect, we need to ensure that JPs and stipendiary magistrates have their existing appointments terminated on a specific date and are then appointed under their new terms on a specific date. In practice, the Executive wants existing JPs and stipendiary magistrates—if they are eligible and willing to take up their new appointments—to start their new appointments on precisely the same day as their old appointments cease. That will ensure that there is no transitional period during which there are no JPs anywhere in Scotland. The amendments ensure that there can be no doubt about the fact that current appointments will come to an end and new appointments will begin on the same day.Amendment 205 addresses an issue that has been a source of concern to the committee and which was the subject of a recommendation in its stage 1 report. Therefore, I hope that it will be welcomed by the committee.As the committee is aware, the bill currently provides for the appointments of all existing JPs to terminate on a given day. All full JPs will then automatically be appointed on new five-year terms on the same day, provided that they agree to meet the requirements relating to sitting on the bench and undertaking training and appraisal.At present, many full JPs do not sit on the bench. There are approximately 1,400 full JPs in total, but only 600 of them have sat on the bench during the past 12 months. That means that approximately 800 full JPs are currently eligible for automatic appointment under the new system—if they sign up to the relevant conditions—but do not have any recent experience of sitting on the bench.The committee expressed concern in its stage 1 report at the possibility that JPs without recent experience of sitting on the bench might be expected to sit on the bench under the new appointments system. Amendment 205 seeks to address that concern. It ensures that the only JPs who are eligible for automatic appointment under the new system are those who have been placed on the court rota during the 12 months prior to the new appointments system coming into force. Other JPs will not be eligible for automatic appointment, although they will be able to apply for appointment, with other members of the public, when vacancies arise in their local area.The committee's recommendation stated that JPs without recent experience of sitting in court should have the opportunity to receive training so that they can apply for reappointment at a later stage. That could be construed as suggesting that people who are currently full JPs but who do not sit on the bench would have to undertake training before being eligible to apply for future vacancies. That would not be a justifiable requirement, as it would in effect impose a higher standard for existing justices than for members of the public who have never been appointed as a JP. Therefore, we intend to offer training to full JPs who are not eligible for automatic appointment. JPs will still be free to apply for future vacancies as part of the normal public recruitment process even if they have not availed themselves of the training. The policy intention does not need to be included in the bill. We believe that amendment 205 addresses the committee's concerns on this important issue. It will ensure that the only people who are automatically appointed as JPs under the new system are those who have recent experience of sitting on the bench. In doing so, it should ensure that the bill achieves its intention of improving the overall standard of lay justice throughout Scotland.Amendment 206 is a minor amendment and relates to the training of JPs. When the bill was drafted, we anticipated that successful candidates would be appointed as JPs and would then be required to attend induction training. However, a number of stakeholders have pointed out that that would create a problem if, for example, it became clear during the induction training that a candidate was not well suited to becoming a JP. Therefore, we anticipate that people who have been successful in any recruitment process will be asked to undergo induction training. The advisory committee in their sheriffdom will then forward their names for appointment as JPs after, rather than before, they successfully undergo the training.Therefore, any order that relates to the induction training of JPs will relate to people who have not yet been appointed as JPs. Amendment 206 makes it clear that ministers' order-making powers are not confined to people who have already been appointed as JPs but extend to people who need to undergo induction training in order to become JPs.Amendment 207 is intended to put it beyond doubt that section 57(1) applies only to JPs who have been appointed on five-year terms. It puts it beyond doubt that existing JPs cannot be reappointed under the subsection when their current appointments come to an end under section 54(7)(a).Amendments 208 and 209 are minor and technical drafting amendments that do not change the meaning of the bill. They simply separate out a provision that, first, specifies the fact that the sheriff principal must chair the tribunal and, secondly, sets out the restrictions on the sheriffs principal who may chair. Those two matters will now be dealt with in separate subsections.Amendment 210 ensures that full-time stipendiary magistrates are appointed until the age of 70 rather than placed on renewable five-year appointments. The amendment means that the appointment terms of full-time stipendiary magistrates will be in line with those of sheriffs. Part-time stipendiary magistrates will still be placed on five-year appointments, similar to those for part-time sheriffs and justices of the peace.The Executive believes that it would be anomalous for the appointment terms of full-time stipendiary magistrates to be different from those of sheriffs. In addition, placing full-time stipendiary magistrates on limited terms would bring few benefits. In particular, unlike with JPs, their appointment will not be linked to requirements for training, appraisal and availability to sit on the bench, so there is less benefit in subjecting them to periodic reappointment. For those reasons, the Executive thinks that it would be better to amend the bill to appoint full-time stipendiary magistrates until the age of 70.Amendment 222, in the name of Mike Pringle, would impose a minimum requirement on JPs to be available to perform business and signing functions at least once a month. I have two concerns about that. The first is that, although I support its objective—for JPs to sit more often—I am not convinced that amendment 222 is the best way of achieving it. On a more detailed level, I have some concerns about the amendment's drafting.On the first point, I share the concern expressed in the committee's stage 1 report that some JPs do not sit on the bench often enough to gain adequate experience. That is one reason why the bill provides for sheriffs principal to set minimum requirements for sitting on the bench. However, I am concerned that amendment 222 sets a minimum requirement that a minority of JPs may find impossible to meet. According to the most recent figures that we have, there are 15 local authority areas in Scotland where JPs currently sit on average for fewer than 12 days a year. Several of those areas currently operate a three-person bench. Even if we allow for the probability that there will be an increase in the number of district or JP court cases, there are still likely to be JPs—perhaps in rural areas in particular—who are unable to meet the statutory minimum requirement that amendment 222 proposes. That is why the Executive would prefer to adopt an approach in which each sheriff principal can set minimum sitting requirements. Those requirements will take into account the number of JPs in an area and the likely volume of court business, as well as the desirability of JPs sitting on the bench frequently.In the longer term, we expect that justice of the peace advisory committees, which will be chaired by sheriffs principal, will take into account the need for serving JPs to sit on the bench regularly when they decide how many new JPs need to be recruited in a particular area. That would mean that the number of JPs in an area would be large enough for local business needs to be met but not so large as to prevent JPs from sitting frequently.On a more detailed point, the amendment would not necessarily achieve the policy intention that the committee outlined in its stage 1 report. As drafted, the requirement to be available at least once a month applies to signing functions as well as to the performance of judicial functions. Technically, somebody might be able to meet the minimum requirement simply by performing a signing duty every month. I doubt whether that is what is intended.In conclusion, I am sympathetic to the aims of amendment 222, but I believe that it is better to allow for some local flexibility in setting minimum sitting requirements. Otherwise, particularly at the start of the new system, there is a danger of setting a statutory requirement that JPs will not be able to meet. Therefore, I ask Mike Pringle not to move amendment 222.I move amendment 203.