Sheriff Court Review (Lothian and Borders)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-233, in the name of Murray Tosh, on the Lothian and Borders sheriff court review. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes without any question being put. Members who want to speak in the debate should press their buttons now. Members who are not staying for the debate should leave as quickly and as quietly as possible to allow the debate to begin.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses its concern about the proposed rationalisation of Sheriff Court Services in Lothian and the Borders, and calls upon the Scottish Executive, when it draws up its proposals for action on the Sheriff Principal's recommendations, to take into account the financial and operational impact of the proposed changes on the police, district court and social work services in the Borders, as well as the cost and inconvenience of the proposed changes to the public, local press and legal practices in the Borders.
I was once a history student and came across a parliamentary by-election that was held in the constituency of Ayr in 1905. Like the South of Scotland, which I currently represent, Ayr was a substantial borough constituency that included Inveraray, Oban and Campbeltown. The Government of the day lost that by-election; the Liberals won it. The critical transfer of votes was traced to the burgh of Inveraray, and the key issue there transpired to be a public outcry against the proposal of the then Government to close the sheriff court at Inveraray and transfer it to Dunoon. History does not repeat itself exactly: the future of Duns sheriff court is unlikely to be a major factor in the forthcoming by-election in Ayr—and, of course, the Liberals will not win.
The attachment of local people to such symbols of their community remains strong, as I can testify from more recent experience, when I was a candidate last year in the constituency of Cunninghame South. One of the salient local issues there was the desire of many people in the Irvine area to establish a sheriff court there, rather than be served in distant Kilmarnock. That is the key to today's debate on the future of the courts in Peebles and Duns.
There has been a substantial public and professional response to Sheriff Principal Nicholson's initial recommendations, and it has been almost universally hostile. Respondents have noted that there has never been any concern expressed, by the public or by the legal profession, about the existing courts at Peebles and Duns. Many respondents pointed out that, in his report, the sheriff principal stated that no fault could be found in the status quo as far as accessibility and service delivery were concerned. He also stated that the courts were conveniently located, that the public transport links to them were good and that the courts met the performance targets that he had set.
The issue, therefore, has been presented as largely financial. Savings of around £40,000 a year have been claimed—but not demonstrated—if Duns sheriff court were to be closed, and of £87,000 per year in the case of Peebles. The Berwickshire faculty of solicitors pointed out to the sheriff principal that the alleged savings would, in fact, be achieved at the expense of hidden costs, for example, additional travel and attendance costs for litigants, additional witness expenses, travelling time, compensation for loss of earnings, additional police costs—mainly for travel and waiting—and the costs of people engaging solicitors in Haddington and Edinburgh rather than in local communities. There is also a risk that local solicitors would no longer be prepared, at least in the case of Duns, to provide criminal legal aid cover because the additional expenses would not be covered by the scheme.
Scottish Borders Council highlighted the difficulties and costs incurred by its legal and social work services attending and supporting legal cases in Edinburgh and Haddington sheriff courts. East Lothian Council explained in considerable detail how its social work services would suffer disruption and higher costs if its criminal justice service had to serve two jurisdictions. It was concerned about delays in dealing with emergency child protection cases, and about the costs involved in its housing department, and other departments, having to raise actions for the recovery of tenancy and other legal cases in Haddington and Edinburgh as well as in the Borders.
The council is concerned about whether its own sheriff court solicitor could cover Edinburgh, or whether it would have to engage solicitors at additional expense in Edinburgh or come to a service level agreement with City of Edinburgh Council.
Scottish Borders Council highlighted police issues, as did the Law Society of Scotland, which went so far as to express concern that the changes could lead to more cases of people failing to appear before the courts, and of the police therefore being obliged to arrest people and escort them to court appearances. I did not see the police consultation, but I understand that the police are concerned that a great deal of their time could be
wasted on work that is peripheral to their real task of tackling crime in the Borders.
The Scottish Borders justices committee, in its examination of the transport issues, highlighted complex multiple journeys for people living around Duns and Peebles. The council drew attention to the fact that, even if bus services could be provided on the main routes, it would still be extremely difficult for people to come up to Haddington from east Berwickshire. The bus service can take 16 people, has to be pre-booked and arrives in Haddington at 11 am, which is too late for court sessions beginning at 10 am. That would mean a real risk of people having to arrange overnight accommodation.
The council made the telling point that access to justice is a fundamental principle. In its report, it pointed out that section 48 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 places a statutory duty on the local authority to consider just that point when considering the provision of district court accommodation. The legal obligation on the local authority is to have regard to the desirability of minimising the expense and inconvenience occasioned to those directly involved, whether as parties or witnesses, in the proceedings before the court. The justices committee is unanimous in its opinion that the sheriff court, as a superior part of the judicial system, should not operate on a lesser standard.
The debate has raged in East Lothian and in the Borders for many months now. Many people have contributed and many arguments have been raised. I understand that the sheriff principal has now completed his review and that the minister has received his recommendations. I hope that he will be able to tell us that the sheriff principal has reflected on the public concern that has been expressed and on all the points that have been raised, and that he has accepted the argument that the hidden costs that will fall on other parties will match, or possibly outweigh, the savings that the legal service may make as a result of the changes that were initially proposed.
I hope that, as a consequence, the minister will be able to give us good news. If he is unable to do so, I hope that he will offer Parliament assurances that, when the final decision is made, it will take into account not only the administrative facility of the justice service, or the budget—which is essentially a central Government budget—but the administrative convenience, practicality and budgets of the local authorities, the police, the public and the press. I hope that we will get a satisfactory outcome from what has been an interesting exercise—one that has shown that there is strong support in the Borders and in East Lothian for local jurisdiction to be preserved and for justice to be dispensed in the community and in the eyes of the community.
My sources of observations on the review are the same as those that Murray Tosh has cited—the Scottish Borders justices committee, Berwickshire faculty of solicitors and the Law Society of Scotland. I have also appeared in Duns, Selkirk and Haddington sheriff courts—in a professional capacity, I hasten to add.
The financial savings suggested in the review are putative. For the Peebles closure, the savings are de minimis, and for Duns, the closure involves hidden costs. It is agreed that Peebles sheriff court is underused at the moment, but the predicted population growth figures are already out of date. The Cardrona estate is already in growth and, if Drew Tully, the convener of the local authority, has anything to do with it, the population of the Borders will increase by 20,000 as quickly as he can manage it—but not personally.
At worst, Peebles sheriff court should be mothballed. A possible resolution would be for it to get its clerking services from Selkirk, just as Duns is serviced from Jedburgh, although the court itself would remain open.
Duns is a more difficult case. From any point of view, the closure is not appropriate, the savings are illusory and there are enormous hidden costs. One cost that Murray Tosh did not mention is the legal aid fund, which might incur knock-on costs as a result of having to employ solicitors both locally and in Haddington if the work were moved there.
The human costs must also be considered. To suggest that people should travel from Duns to Haddington is not viable, especially if they are travelling not from Duns itself but from the surrounding area. I examined the costs involved in that bus journey. To get from Duns to Haddington, one would have to leave Duns at 7.30 am, change at Earlston or Galashiels, get another bus from Gala to Edinburgh, arriving at 10.30 am, and finally a bus to Haddington, leaving Edinburgh at 11 am. By the time the bus arrives in Haddington at 12.15, the court has adjourned for the morning, leaving only the afternoon and necessitating an overnight stay. The cheapest ticket—the Waverley day ticket—costs £11.50. That is ridiculous.
The courts handle not just criminal proceedings, but civil proceedings involving ordinary people with ordinary problems and the stresses that those entail. The proposed closures would add the pressure of having to travel long distances for divorce hearings, residency hearings and access hearings. Intermediate hearings and the need to call witnesses would add to the travel burden, as
would contract disputes and small claims procedures, which allow ordinary people to call their own witnesses. The whole caboodle of the court process would place the responsibility for all those costs on the public at large. The closure of Duns and/or Peebles sheriff courts would remove at a stroke local access to justice.
There would also be a knock-on effect, which Murray Tosh touched on, on local solicitors who would not be able to service clients at such distant courts. Local solicitors would perhaps take statements, but other solicitors would appear in court. That is not good representation—the immediate relationship between client and solicitor in court appearances would be lost. Local offices could close and other services would be removed from the local area: preparation of wills, administration of estates, house purchases by solicitors with local knowledge, partnership agreements—all the day-to-day business of the rural solicitor's practice.
Finally, the proposal to close fails to recognise the homogenous nature of the Borders, which people guard fiercely. The closure would diminish Borders justice by dispensing with the strength of permanent Borders sheriffs, who know their patch, their people and, sometimes—unfortunately—the professionals who appear in front of them. Such sheriffs have the measure of the whole legal environment.
I therefore oppose the suggestion that the Peebles and Duns sheriff courts should be closed. As for Haddington sheriff court, there is room to consider moving work that comes to it from Musselburgh to Edinburgh sheriff court. I found that for clients in Musselburgh it would have been more convenient to raise divorce actions in Edinburgh than in Haddington. That might be conceded.
As the constituency member for Berwickshire, I will concentrate my remarks on Duns sheriff court. As has been alluded to, Berwickshire is a robust community with a strong community spirit. When the proposals for closure were first announced, I sensed locally a campaigning atmosphere similar to that during the recent parliamentary boundary review, when a campaign was mounted, called Keep Berwickshire in the Borders. Some of the old slogans were dusted off and Duns court was substituted in the headline.
Clearly, the view is strong in Berwickshire that the area deserves and needs its sheriff court in Duns. Indeed, I am not aware of anyone who supports the closure of either court, particularly the one in Duns. None of the responses to the consultation that I saw suggested that there was any merit in the proposal to close Duns court. We have already heard about the severe difficulties in accessing Haddington. As has been suggested, it is perfectly clear from the public transport timetables that it would be impossible to get to court in Haddington in time. The responses to the consultation made an unanswerable case for keeping Duns sheriff court open.
This is a question of access to justice and, for the local community, of confidence. We have already heard about the additional costs that might fall on other parts of the public purse, such as the police and the Scottish Borders social work department, but there are also voluntary agencies, such as citizens advice bureaux, which attend court from time to time to assist clients in civil or criminal matters and which will also face additional costs.
The proposal is also slightly strange, because Duns sheriff court was refurbished recently— within the past three to four years—perhaps not to the best of standards, but it was refurbished nevertheless. The money that was invested will be lost if the sheriff court closes.
There are clear advantages in local sheriffs dealing with local business. However, there is also an advantage in that having the local press report the local courts acts as a deterrent. I am sure that some of those who are here today will know all about that, at least from a professional point of view.
The other important point is that Haddington sheriff court is not big enough—the storage facilities are nearly full. The proposal is therefore unviable not only in terms of access, but in terms of the facilities that are available.
A conclusive case has been made for both courts and, as I said, no consultee anywhere has any time for the proposal to close them. It is also important to bear in mind the unanimity that exists in the community about the decisions that the Executive must take.
It is ironic that Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson was involved in the boundary issue and the campaign, Keep Berwickshire in the Borders, and now is here again. I am pleased to hear from the press and other sources that his recommendation is that the court should stay open.
The responses to the consultation have made an unanswerable case. Perhaps the Deputy Minister for Justice can dispel some of the uncertainty and tell us, despite the wider issues in the review that might need to be addressed, that the two courts will stay open.
Just seven minutes are left for speeches; two members wish to speak. It would be helpful if they kept their remarks to under four minutes.
I endorse everything that has been said and will not repeat it, although I am glad to have the chance to speak in the debate.
I remember that when my car was stolen, I sat in Hamilton sheriff court for two days. Eventually the chap changed his plea, so I did not have to be a witness—but I sat there with four police officers from the Borders. That would happen every week, if people had to travel from Peebles to Edinburgh.
As far as I am concerned, the case is made. I believe that on reflection Sheriff Principal Nicholson will take advantage of the arguments that we have heard here; I especially support the first argument that Murray Tosh made. It would be wrong if, having campaigned for devolution and bringing government closer to the people, I stood by as my Executive closed a court and took justice away from people.
As a lawyer, I look back with some nostalgia to the days when I represented one person at a time rather than 70,000. That is a different challenge.
I support the eloquent speeches that have been made in the debate. It would be wrong to close the sheriff courts. My points are more generally addressed to problems of court administration. There must be more scope for making effective cost reductions without compromising justice, through streamlining procedures rather than amending structures. I say that as someone who has spent many hours in sheriff courts paid by legal aid for waiting time—chatting all the while to members of the police who were spending all day, every day sitting waiting in the courts. There are no easy answers, but a challenge facing our Parliament is to benefit from the direct experience of practitioners and to ensure that courts are arranged not for the benefit entirely of the sheriffs, but with a mind to the public purse. am concerned that the Scottish Courts Administration faces an even more difficult task than hospitals—at least they have inalienability in the way in which matters are arranged. In courts, there is far less predictability because timetables are daily blown off course by changes of plea and other decisions made by clients. The particular problem faced in the Highlands and Islands, as well as in Lothian and Borders, is that civil servants of executive officer grade and above are required to be mobile. In the Highlands, that means that an experienced sheriff clerk can be told that he or she has to go and work in another court that might be up to an hour and a quarter's drive away. Although I recognise that it is difficult for the Scottish Courts Administration to organise things so that sufficient experienced staff are available, I am concerned that that rule potentially discriminates against sheriff clerks in the Highlands and Islands.
I became aware of that peculiarity of the system only recently. I mention it, although I appreciate that it is not directly relevant to what we are discussing. However, I submit that it is relevant to the general issue of how we run the courts system in a cost-effective manner, without compromising the interests of justice.
My concluding remarks will be brief. I congratulate Murray Tosh on raising the subject of the debate. I hope that the constituency members Euan Robson and Ian Jenkins, and all members who have contributed to the debate, will take some satisfaction from the remarks that I am about to make.
I am happy to respond to the debate, partly because I hope that what I have to say will be well received, and partly because I agree with the sentiments of the motion that there is a duty on the Executive properly to consider the full implications of any proposals to change sheriff court boundaries. The provision of courthouses should be made with an eye to the ready availability of justice for everyone who needs or wants to use our courts.
At the same time, the principle of value for money has to be a factor in this part of the public service, as it is in any other. Sheriff Principal Nicholson has acted responsibly in undertaking a thorough review of the provision of courts in the Borders and East Lothian, which both come within his sheriffdom. I strongly commend his approach to all the sheriffs principal, who share a duty, along with ministers, to try to secure the efficient and effective operation of the courts in their sheriffdoms. From time to time, therefore, that duty will involve taking a hard look at the provision of court services, particularly where movements in population and other demographic changes come into play.
I can advise Parliament that Sheriff Principal Nicholson's report, as was indicated earlier in the debate, was received by officials in my department towards the end of last week. In his report, he
recommends against closure of Duns or Peebles sheriff courts. He also recommends against the transfer of certain business from the Haddington sheriff court district to the Edinburgh sheriff court district. It can be fairly said that his report reflects the strength of opposition to change that came from those whom he consulted and which members have articulated in contributions today.
Clearly, given that the report was received only towards the end of last week, a little while longer will be needed for ministers properly to consider the Executive's response. However, as I made clear at the beginning of my speech, and having listened to what members have said in the debate, I have a good deal of sympathy for the principal arguments that underlie the motion. The Minister for Justice and I will reflect on what has been said today, but I think that I can assure members that there is no prospect of this Administration bringing forward proposals for the closure of Duns and Peebles sheriff courts. [Applause.]
I will end with a straightforward undertaking that our formal response to the sheriff principal's report will be made known to Parliament in due course— at the earliest possible opportunity.
Normally I close by thanking the minister for his response, but I think that he has already been thanked. Thank you anyway.
Meeting closed at 17:29.