Local Courts
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-09454, in the name of Jim Hume, on keep justice local. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that sheriff courts have successfully dispensed justice in communities across South Scotland for hundreds of years; regrets what it considers the disappointing decision of the Scottish Court Service to close sheriff courts in Duns, Haddington, Kirkcudbright and Peebles; considers that this creates difficulties in accessing justice for witnesses and victims of crime; further considers that this creates a worrying precedent in removing civil service job opportunities from South Scotland communities where every job is at a premium; notes the continuing work of the feasibility study group currently considering the future of court provision in the Borders, whose members include the Scottish Court Service, Scottish Borders Council, Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and notes calls for the group to engage in a full and transparent public consultation on the future of Jedburgh and Selkirk sheriff courts with a view to retaining access to justice in those towns.
12:36
I speak on behalf of many constituents in saying that there are genuine fears about how local justice will be dispensed across South Scotland as a result of Scottish Government closure orders last June.
We have had members’ business debates on the issue before. In 2002, Christine Grahame secured a debate on Peebles sheriff court, from which I will quote. It was said in that debate that
“The issue concerns how we bring democracy home to people and down to the roots. The fundamental tenet of any democratic society is a judicial system that is not only affordable but accessible and visible ... Fundamentally, the issue concerns how a democratic society works. Sheriff courts are part of the apparatus of state at the local level.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2002; c 10277.]
Those are not my words; they are the words of Kenny MacAskill. What has happened to him in the past decade? Under his Administration, courts in Annan and Kirkcudbright have closed, and courts in Duns, Peebles and Haddington will close. Despite MacAskill’s warm words over a decade ago, the Scottish Government exhibited last June its typically instinctive lean towards centralisation.
Haddington business will transfer to Edinburgh, and there are fears that courts in Edinburgh will struggle to deal with the extra case load. Figures that the Scottish Court Service released at the end of last year show that cases that were being heard at Edinburgh sheriff court had already increased by 42 per cent, that outstanding summary cases had risen by 49 per cent, and that the time taken to bring a case to court had increased by two weeks. For the justice of the peace court, cases that were being heard in Edinburgh had increased by 50 per cent, outstanding summary cases had increased by 139 per cent, and the time taken to bring cases to court had increased by 17 weeks.
Those are really worrying figures. The busy Haddington court has served the large East Lothian county, and the public are rightly questioning the decision to close it on the basis of proximity to other facilities. The inevitable delays will damage public confidence in local justice, create a less efficient system and cause stress for victims and witnesses. The Law Society of Scotland has warned of exactly that scenario.
In the rest of South Scotland, Kirkcudbright has lost its sheriff court after 550 years and Annan has lost its justice of the peace court, with its 700-year history. The mass transfer of business to Dumfries represents a transfer over a huge geographical area.
The closure of all five courts presents huge travel issues. That is the view of the councils, professionals and individuals alike. The Law Society of Scotland stated:
“These closures seriously threaten access to justice in many parts of Scotland and could lead to a long term decline in our justice system. The changes will force many court users to travel further distances, at greater expense and with the result that access to justice is limited, particularly for vulnerable people and those living in rural communities.”
East Lothian Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council echoed those concerns.
The Law Society and others say that removing courts will result in the non-reporting of crime because people will not want to get involved in the hassle of attending court, due to the cost and the long journeys. It has also been underlined that removing courts could harm the rehabilitation of offenders whose crimes have impacted on their local community. Those worrying concerns have been expressed by non-political professionals and legal experts.
In the Borders, we await the outcome of the feasibility study group’s views on future options and what those might be, including the option of a justice centre. The decision to close Duns and Peebles courts was the starter for 10, and my fear is that the work of the study group is a fait accompli, with the closure of Jedburgh and Selkirk courts a done deal. Selkirk is the very place where our nation’s hero, Sir Walter Scott, was sheriff for more than 20 years. Members of the study group admit that the closure of Duns and Peebles courts will create a situation where, come 2015, court provision will be untenable because access to justice will have been compromised.
There has been no information on what shape a justice centre would or could take, how it could work or what other services may or may not be incorporated from elsewhere. In essence, that means fundamental changes to our justice system in the Borders will take place at the same time as we are acting as a guinea pig in relation to the notion of a justice centre.
The constituents who contacted me about their fears over access to justice talked about their local towns being raided of yet another key facility, hot on the heels of the closure of police counters and control rooms. The removal of high-value civil service jobs from rural areas is a dangerous precedent. Every single job in our rural South Scotland is at a premium, even if the numbers are small. More than that, and as Kenny MacAskill said in 2002:
“Not only does the court’s presence give the town a gravitas that would be denigrated if the court were removed, but the court provides the area with a symbol of justice in a democratic society.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2002; c 10278.]
Those are MacAskill’s words.
I have been frustrated by what I see as a lack of Government accountability on the issue. Answers to my parliamentary questions have insisted that responsibility for Scotland’s courts is not a matter for Scottish ministers. The Scottish Court Service, however, says something different. In its recommendations in response to the consultation, it states:
“Any recommendations made within this report relative to closure of sheriff courts or closure or disestablishment of justice of the peace courts are matters that fall within the responsibility of Scottish Ministers.”
That is the Scottish Government’s responsibility.
The Court Service goes on to state:
“Where we recommend court closures, it will be for Scottish Ministers to consider and to take any necessary statutory orders to the Scottish Parliament.”
That is the Government’s responsibility.
The Court Service further states:
“We will therefore submit our recommendations for consideration by Scottish Ministers. It will then be for Scottish Ministers to reach a view on what orders they intend laying.”
That is the Government’s responsibility, which was, unfortunately, borne out in Scottish Government closure orders last June.
It is in the power of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Government to reject further court closures. I look to the cabinet secretary and his ministers for assurances that they will reject any future recommendation to close Selkirk and Jedburgh sheriff courts.
12:43
I am grateful to Jim Hume for ensuring that today’s debate can take place. It raises many important issues for those who live in the south of Scotland. I am also grateful to him for the statistics that he has outlined, which saves me a great deal of time as I do not have to repeat them.
There is no doubt that the outcome of the Government’s policy is to starve justice in the round. We are now beginning to perceive an emaciated system that is being cut and reduced across the board. It is suffering outcomes that can only result in communities feeling that justice is not local, is not being delivered effectively and is not serving the purposes of our communities—the very purposes for which justice is provided.
The closures of the courts in Duns, Haddington, Kirkcudbright and Peebles were, in themselves, a great disappointment to many members across the Parliament, no matter their party, and the perceived threat to Jedburgh and Selkirk sheriff courts is felt strongly by the communities of those towns.
The notion of hubs has been discussed in the Parliament. Indeed, at one point it almost seemed as if the idea was hubbing around the country, as each area was promised that consideration would be given to a hub. That has further confused the matter, not just in my mind but for communities throughout the south of Scotland.
Court closures, along with the closure of police counters and the perception that local policing is not being delivered in a way that communities regard as valuable, mean that the delivery of justice faces a worrying future. If witnesses are to come forward, they need to be confident that the system is there to support them as they give evidence on behalf of us all.
The member is experienced in the field of justice, given his previous career. Will he say what impact the closures, and the extra travel time and expenses that will be involved, are likely to have on people’s willingness to come forward and engage in the justice system?
It is common sense to realise that if witnesses must suffer the inconvenience of covering longer distances, with the possibility, if they are using public transport, of having to travel in the company of people or relatives of people against whom they will give evidence, there will be a disincentive to come forward, particularly for witnesses who suffer some incapacity.
In addition, legal aid cuts that have taken place elsewhere will affect working people. People who have sufficient disposable income will be obliged to pay to be represented at the court, and if the court is also some distance from their community, that does not augur well for the future.
It is difficult to say that this is progressive policy in action. The policy has been driven by budget cuts and insisted on by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who has delivered a system that hungers for investment and is an emaciated shadow of its former self. I regret that, and I hope that the minister can give us some words of comfort and a commitment for the future.
12:47
I am grateful to Jim Hume for bringing this debate and for reminding me of what I said in 2002.
However, we are not in 2002, when money was sloshing about the Parliament and we had a Labour-Liberal coalition; we are in 2014, when there have been huge cuts to the Scottish Government’s budget. Let us start by being honest. Why did the closure of sheriff courts come up in the first place? It came up because of swingeing cuts to the Scottish Government’s revenue and capital budgets. I have been following the issue and I know the detail.
The cabinet secretary said to the Justice Committee in June:
“The Scottish Court Service is therefore seeking to save £4.5 million from its revenue budget. It estimates that the proposals will save almost £1 million a year, and an estimated maintenance backlog of £3 million.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 4 June 2013; c2907.]
I emphasise the word “backlog”. Members must recall that the Liberal Democrats were in office for eight years, in coalition with Labour. Indeed, we had a Liberal Democrat justice minister in Jim Wallace, now Lord Wallace of Tankerness—that seems to be Liberal Democrats’ ultimate destination.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have listened to enough guff.
Why are we short of cash here? I have explained why. Who cut it? Why, it was Danny Alexander, Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Tory Treasury. There is hypocrisy from the better together parties around the chamber today.
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr Hume, it appears that the member is not taking an intervention.
I have only four minutes; he had seven.
Lord Gill, the Lord President of the Court of Session and senior judge in Scotland, told the committee:
“Whether it likes it or not, the Scottish Court Service must achieve a reduction in its budget of 20 per cent over the four-year period from 2010-11 to 2014-15 ... At the moment, 40 per cent of our running costs are tied up in buildings that form the court estate and the very considerable costs of their upkeep and maintenance.”
He said:
“The impetus for all of this work arose from the need to save money”,
and:
“My feeling is that a perfectly good intellectual case could be made for the changes even if we were not living in these rather unusual economic circumstances.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 4 June 2013; c 2938, 2940-1.]
Times have changed. Courts in my patch of the Borders landed where they are because that is where the farms, estates, horses and carts and markets were. Now Galashiels has a new transport hub under development for buses and trains, and an Asda Walmart and a Tesco Extra—those are today’s market squares. That is why it makes sense to locate a justice centre in Galashiels.
I am indeed kept informed on progress. The most recent meeting was on 21 March 2014, at which the Scottish Court Service—it is much maligned by some members in the chamber, but it is in charge—met Scottish Borders Council and engaged with Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Children 1st, local solicitors, the community justice authority and others. I call that wide consultation—the SCS seemed very satisfied in doing it, and it will report early in the summer.
The decision does not preclude courts from sitting elsewhere, as we on the Justice Committee know. For example, a court can be designated so that a child welfare hearing can be held in a more suitable location for the witness. I say gently to Jim Hume that the savage cuts from his team at Westminster have not led in Scotland, as they have in England, to a cut in legal aid for those who want contact with their children. If he wants to keep those courts open, he must say where the money is to come from. Perhaps we would have the buildings, but no one would have legal aid to cross the threshold.
I am so angry because there is a whiff of hypocrisy and false fury from members on various sides of the chamber. It comes from Labour, which got us into this mess in the first place, and from the Liberal Democrats and Tories, who have cut our budgets. They ask why we are doing this, and the answer is that they have cut the money. The cabinet secretary has made a good choice to keep legal aid, not buildings.
12:51
I welcome the debate and—unlike the other Borders MSP, apparently—the opportunity to stand up for local justice.
I completely agree with the tenor and content of Jim Hume’s motion, although I point out that, while court closures were recommended by the Scottish Court Service, the decision was made very much by the Justice Committee, and the decision to close sheriff courts in Duns, Haddington, Kirkcudbright and Peebles was forced through by the Scottish National Party members on the committee. I was proud to vote against the proposal.
Duns, in my constituency, hears—despite not being the busiest of courts—more than 330 sheriff cases a year, and the JP court sits fortnightly. I am in no doubt that it was an important local service that was worth fighting for.
The closure of Duns sheriff court will force victims and witnesses to travel more than 30 miles to Jedburgh sheriff court. Indeed, the Scottish Court Service has conceded that the closure will result in some of my constituents being unable to travel to Jedburgh by public transport without an overnight stay, which clearly breaches the SCS’s own principles for provision of access to justice. The closure of the courts will place a huge amount of stress on courts that remain open and are forced to take on thousands of additional cases.
As the motion recognises, the closures will result in the withdrawal of high-quality civil service job opportunities in the Borders, which is a particular blow to such a rural area. The Scotland-wide court closures are yet further evidence of the SNP’s increasingly urban prioritisation and centralising tendency. They represent the diversion of more and more public services to the central belt and major cities, thereby ignoring the importance of local services and local access to justice in areas such as the Borders.
Alternatives to court closures exist; they include moving courts to a part-time basis and making better use of existing public buildings. In my constituency, to add insult to injury, the closure of Duns will make only relatively minor savings, which means that an important local service will be lost for only a minimal gain to the Scottish Court Service’s budget.
It is noticeable, and perhaps telling, that very few SNP members are in the chamber for the debate. None of the SNP regional members are present, and only Christine Grahame comes from a constituency in the south of Scotland.
I am still unable to understand why Colin Keir, Sandra White, John Finnie, Roderick Campbell and Christine Grahame all voted in favour of closing a fifth of Scotland’s sheriff courts, in light of the evidence that we received in the committee that showed that access to justice would be damaged.
Mr Lamont talked about Christine Grahame and other members voting for closures. Does he not think that it was hypocritical that, just a few weeks before that, in December 2012, Christine Grahame stated in her Christmas message:
“Have a good Christmas. In the New Year the fight goes on to keep Peebles Sheriff Court open.”
I thank the member for that point and I agree entirely. Back in June, SNP members of the Justice Committee, including Christine Grahame, apparently put party interests first and local people second. The SNP should not be proud of that trend, and I hope that SNP members will redeem themselves by opposing any further closures, although I doubt it.
Despite the withdrawal of justice from many towns in my constituency, the future of Jedburgh and Selkirk sheriff courts remains in doubt. The Scottish Court Service is currently assessing the most effective method of future provision of an integrated justice service for the Borders. That clearly means that further closures are being actively considered, and the number of courts in the Borders might yet fall from four to just one.
I hope that the Scottish Court Service will learn lessons from last year and properly consult and listen to the views of local residents who are telling me loud and clear that local justice matters and is important. The closure of Jedburgh and Selkirk sheriff courts would be a devastating blow for the Borders, and I will continue to speak out against that move.
12:56
I, too, congratulate Jim Hume on having this motion selected for debate, thereby ensuring that the decision taken by the Scottish Government and its majority in Parliament to close sheriff courts in rural south Scotland is not simply brushed aside and forgotten, as some might prefer.
On 11 June last year, the Justice Committee voted by a majority of only one not to annul the Sheriff Court Districts Amendment Order 2013 and the Justice of the Peace Courts (Scotland) Amendment Order 2013. Local members representing the affected communities made arguments on access to justice, on possible alternatives such as sharing facilities with other public sector agencies, and on the wider effects of closures on local communities, to no avail.
On the closure of Annan JP court and Kirkcudbright sheriff court, I pointed out the unanimous opposition of all members of all parties on Dumfries and Galloway Council to the closures and their fears that they could lead to the non-reporting of crime because of the distances required to travel to court. I also mentioned the effects on staff in criminal justice social work, and on the police. A programme of closure of 10 sheriff courts and seven JP courts subsequently commenced, with the historic courts in Annan—as Jim Hume said, it was there for 700 years—and Kirkcudbright, which dated from 1455, closing last November.
The case against closure of those courts concentrated on access to justice for victims and witnesses, as Jim Hume’s motion states, but he also makes an important point about the precedent of removing civil service jobs from rural areas. Taken together with the loss of jobs from police and fire control rooms and police counters, we now seem to be witnessing the reverse of the relocations policy of the Scottish Executive during the first eight years of the Parliament. Under that Executive, the small units initiative relocated small, discrete units of staff of around 10 to 15 people to rural areas to bring the benefits of public sector employment to rural communities. In contrast, the current Government is removing units of staff—and not always small units—from rural communities and relocating them in the central belt.
The other irony is that, since the Scottish Government pushed through its desire to close those rural courts, it has introduced legislation that will place additional pressures on the sheriff court system, which is already acknowledged to be under strain. If the requirement for the abolition of corroboration is passed—and it is odds on that it will be since Christine Grahame is the only person who has had the guts to stick her head above the parapet on that one—many cases will come to the sheriff courts that currently would not. They will probably be unsuccessful but they will add to the courts’ workload.
The Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is undertaking its journey through Parliament this year, proposes placing exclusive competence for cases of under £150,000 on the sheriff courts, thus removing 2,700 cases from the Court of Session to the sheriff courts. I know that the Government will argue that the bill also proposes establishing a specialist personal injury court in Edinburgh, but in rural locations, such as the south of Scotland, complainants might opt to have their case heard in a sheriff court closer to home. Also, although the introduction of summary sheriffs to deal with less complex cases might eventually allow specialist sheriffs more time to devote to their specialisms, those sheriffs are to be appointed only when an existing sheriff retires or leaves, so it might take around 10 years for the system to be fully established. In the short to medium term, the reforms will add to the pressures on our sheriff courts.
The closure of rural sheriff courts a few months before the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill came to Parliament does not seem an example of joined-up thinking on the part of the Government. Jim Hume was right to highlight in his motion the Government’s failure to look at the bigger picture and its failure to safeguard public sector employment in the south of Scotland and in Dumfries and Galloway.
13:00
I welcome the opportunity to remind members that the proposals for rationalising the sheriff court structure are part of a wider set of reforms to create a modern justice system that better meets the needs of the people of Scotland, including those in the south of Scotland. The wider reforms, both civil and criminal, will ensure that cases are more effectively managed, reducing wasted time and the number of hearings required for each case. We cannot do that unless the court estate is rationalised by taking business out of courts that are underused or that duplicate provision in an area.
It is also important to remember that the volume of business carried out in the sheriff courts recommended for closure is only around 5 per cent of the total business. Overall, court business is down, with civil business in the sheriff courts down 13 per cent in 2011-12 compared with 2010-11, and, as we know, crime is at a 37-year low. The Scottish Court Service is confident that the transferred business can be moved without difficulty to a smaller number of better-equipped courts with modern facilities for victims, witnesses and jurors. The remaining courts will provide a more efficient structure for delivery of both general and specialist court services.
We have really not heard much about that in the debate, which seems mostly to be about location, location, location. John Lamont, for example, referenced Duns sheriff court. However, in 2011-12, there were only 45 sitting days at Duns, and the court does not meet equality standards and has no dedicated vulnerable witness facilities.
Duns sheriff court covers not only Duns but the whole of what used to be called Berwickshire. If someone now has to go from, say, Eyemouth to a court in Jedburgh and must get there for 10 o’clock in the morning by using public transport, that is impossible. Accessibility is disappearing, and that is an equality issue.
As if the Scottish Court Service had not actually thought about that and said already that it will accommodate as much as it can changing the times of cases to ensure that people who are required to attend can get to them.
I will just say something about the situation that we are in. Some members, including Jim Hume, still do not appear to understand that it is in fact the Scottish Court Service that makes decisions in relation to courts. Opposition members want us to overrule SCS, but if we did so we would then be accused of running everything from the centre. The Scottish Court Service makes the decisions, and the court closures were an operational matter for SCS, which is now an independent, judicially led corporate body. That has been the position since the enactment of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which was passed unanimously by this Parliament.
Ministers are satisfied that SCS has considered its options carefully against the principles of access to justice set out by the judiciary. The SCS stipulated that court users should be able to get to court by public transport before their case proceeds and should be able to return home by public transport on the same day. That may mean that some cases will be set for later in the court day, but SCS is confident that it will be able to satisfy that requirement.
The fact is that maintaining old buildings that are unsuitable for the 21st century is too expensive. Christine Grahame is absolutely right to say that it is unsustainable. If Opposition members believe that we should keep paying the price to keep those old buildings going, they must say what other services would be cut. There will be no redundancies among Scottish Court Service staff, who will be redeployed to larger courts. In all cases, the resource—both judicial and SCS staff—will follow the business transferring. That is not a case of cutting capacity.
I can readily understand the concern about the future of the sheriff courts in Jedburgh and Selkirk—particularly given Selkirk court’s link to Sir Walter Scott—and about Duns. Like others, I am a local member too. However, it is worth pointing out that not only has it been 40 years since a sheriff court sat in Hawick—and it was not the SNP Government that ended that court—but there has never been a sheriff court in Galashiels, for example. There are many communities in Scotland where there are not sheriff courts—communities that are way larger than those that we are talking about in this debate—so travelling to a sheriff court has been a feature of life for a long time, not just in the Borders but for people across the length and breadth of Scotland. However, the number of people who have to attend court is small, most people do so rarely and that can be accommodated.
As I have said in previous debates, some of the contributions to today’s debate lead inexorably to a solution that would mandate a sheriff court in almost every community. We have never had that—never in our history. Although members are long on criticism, they are short on solutions to the difficulties that we currently confront with a service that is outdated and has been badly resourced over many decades—something that the Government has inherited and must do something about.
The study group referred to by a number of members, including Jim Hume, is jointly sponsored by SCS and Scottish Borders Council and is considering the possibility of a justice centre in the Borders, with an assessment of the most efficient, effective and economic method for the future provision of an integrated justice service for the Scottish Borders. It is a feasibility study, not a blueprint for delivery, and there is no settled position on one type of model or another, despite the pessimism of some members here in Parliament.
The study group is working through phases of analysis and engagement with a wide range of organisations, and the next steps will be for it to complete its analysis and to reach conclusions on feasibility. The final stage will be a report to the SCS board and to the Scottish Borders Council leaders’ group. That report is expected to be available and published in June 2014. We are not dodging issues; we are trying to work through them.
As I said, many of Scotland’s courts date from Victorian times and are not fit for purpose in the 21st century, and many are underused. Others lie close to bigger courts, where business and court and shrieval time will be scheduled more efficiently. Ministers believe that the recommendations of the Scottish Court Service for the future shape of Scotland’s courts will better meet the needs of the people of Scotland, and that is what we aim to do.
13:05
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—