Hansard

My initial point is that the summary sheriffs will be highly qualified; they will have at least 10 years’ professional standing. As the convener said, assignment of business is for the sheriff principal. Indeed, if a case is particularly complex, the sheriff principal may choose to assign it to a sheriff as opposed to a summary sheriff whose jurisdiction is concurrent. Amendments 41 and 42 in the name of Alison McInnes would remove adoption proceedings and forced marriage protection orders from the competence of summary sheriffs. The rationale for the introduction of summary sheriffs is that they should undertake work in the sheriff court to relieve sheriffs of the burden of dealing with the more legally straightforward civil cases and to thus permit sheriffs to be available for more complex casework. The review suggested that the advent of summary sheriffs will help to promote the development of specialisation at both shrieval and summary sheriff level while maintaining, where practicable, the principle of access to local justice. The reforms are about a proportionate use of the judiciary in line with complexity and are by no means about devaluing the importance of specific cases—we recognise that all cases are important to resolve for those involved. Although the intention is that cases should be dealt with at an appropriate level in the court hierarchy, which means that some cases will be heard by summary sheriffs, that does not mean that the quality of justice will be lowered. All judicial officers at whichever level of the courts system will be recommended for appointment by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and trained as required by the Judicial Institute for Scotland. Summary sheriffs will be drawn from the ranks of practitioners who have been legally qualified for at least 10 years—the same as sheriffs—and will have experience of the kinds of cases that will fall within their competence. It will be some considerable time before summary sheriffs are deployed widely, following recruitment and training, and in rural areas there may not be enough work for both a summary sheriff and a sheriff, so there may never be a summary sheriff deployed in some remote areas. All cases will remain with the resident sheriff in those areas. For those reasons, the policy is that summary sheriffs should have concurrent civil competence with sheriffs. The Sheriffs Association said in evidence at the Justice Committee on 18 March that it welcomed the jurisdiction of the summary sheriff and that the summary sheriffs will be “perfectly competent” and “comfortable” doing family cases. Drawing summary sheriffs from areas of specialist expertise and bringing practical experience is seen as a good opportunity by some solicitors, including experienced family practitioners. The role also creates an excellent opportunity for the diversification of the Scottish judiciary. When asked whether she would prefer a summary sheriff or sheriff to deal with family law cases, Karen Gibbons of the Family Law Association told the committee: “In fact, it does not really matter whether they are summary sheriffs or sheriffs as long as they are experienced and have knowledge of family cases. That is the most important thing.”—Official Report, Justice Committee, 25 March 2014; c 4411. 11:00 Following consultation, concurrent jurisdiction between sheriffs and summary sheriffs was extended to adoption and permanence cases and all relevant provisions within the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 relating to court procedures arising from the children’s hearings system. That decision has been taken to address concerns that, unless summary sheriffs were given full concurrent competence in those areas with sheriffs, it would mean that although some procedures might be dealt with by a summary sheriff, some closely related procedures would still have to be heard before a sheriff, leading to confusion among court users and inevitably greater expense to litigants and to the court system through duplication of proceedings. Giving wider concurrent competence will make it possible for the whole of a case to be heard by either a summary sheriff or a sheriff, and the possibility that some parts of proceedings will be heard before a summary sheriff and some before a sheriff will be avoided. The Lord President suggested that forced marriage protection orders should be included in the competence of the summary sheriff. Amendments 41 and 42 do not divide up cases along lines of importance. They would, for example, leave domestic abuse proceedings and children’s hearings within the competence of the summary sheriff, neither of which, I respectfully suggest to the committee, are less important than adoption or forced marriage. The Government believes that the amendments would lead to incoherence in the jurisdiction of summary sheriffs. For that reason, I ask the member not to press her amendments.