Chamber
Plenary, 30 Nov 2000
30 Nov 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
District Courts
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 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."
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
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 a...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Thank you, Presiding Officer.This is the 21st century and Scotland has its own Parliament with clear responsibility for administering and managing its own ju...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
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?
Phil Gallie:
Con
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. ...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
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. ...
Phil Gallie:
Con
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 Go...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP) rose—
SNP
Phil Gallie:
Con
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 part...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Phil Gallie:
Con
Perhaps Christine Grahame will give us some ideas.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
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 Affai...
Phil Gallie:
Con
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...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Will you—
Phil Gallie:
Con
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 ...
Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab):
Lab
Will Mr Gallie give way?
Phil Gallie:
Con
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.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
That is right, Mr Gallie.
Phil Gallie:
Con
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 W...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
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 r...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Iain Gray):
Lab
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,...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 sett...
Iain Gray:
Lab
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...
Phil Gallie:
Con
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 follow...
Iain Gray:
Lab
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 woul...
Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I am sure that all members present recognise that district courts perform an important function in our justice system. The present situation at Glasgow distr...
Iain Gray:
Lab
Does Mr Matheson accept that he has just illustrated perfectly the point that I made: that this is a shared responsibility?
Michael Matheson:
SNP
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 ...
Phil Gallie:
Con
Will the member give way?
Michael Matheson:
SNP
My time is limited, but I will take a quick intervention from Phil Gallie.
Phil Gallie:
Con
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 justic...