Court Closures
The Scottish Court Service commitment was to establish a videolink in the vicinity of the town where a sheriff court would be closing. The SCS is introducing that in phased stages and plans are well advanced for those closing in November 2013, with potential sites identified and evaluation work under way.
The cabinet secretary’s answer reveals that the words that were given to those courts that are closing in 2015—for example, the one in my home town of Haddington—were indeed just warm words to take the sting out of an unpalatable decision. Indeed, the Crown Office has recently confirmed that the fiscal office in Haddington will also close as a result of the decision, which will mean another huge vacant site in the middle of my home town’s high street. I thought that the cabinet secretary believed in community payback by vandals, so when is he going to start paying Haddington back for his vandalism in closing the town’s courts?
Mr Gray will be aware that Haddington court is not due to close until January 2015. Clearly, for the courts that are closing before then, work is on-going. Matters change and times change, as Mr Gray will remember. I have been checking and I note that all out-of-hours emergency child protection orders for Lothian and Borders, including cases in the jurisdiction of Haddington sheriff court, are actually dealt with in Edinburgh sheriff court. That arrangement has worked well since 1999. I know that at that stage Mr Gray was not the elected representative for East Lothian, but I recall that he served as a justice secretary for the then Scottish Executive, so he would have been aware of the arrangement that I have described. Therefore, it seems to me that Mr Gray is being rather hypocritical. When steps were taken to protect children when he was in office he made no criticism, but when steps are taken to progress justice overall, as we face tightening budgets from south of the border and the Scottish Court Service protects the integrity of the system, Mr Gray is critical.
I understand from my correspondence with the Scottish Court Service that it is setting up transitional planning groups to oversee the transfer of business from courts that are closing, such as Cupar sheriff court. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that the Scottish Government will do all that it can to assist those transitional planning groups to bring forward plans, including on rolling out video facilities and family hearings?
Absolutely. I have every confidence in the Scottish Court Service taking forward those plans and working with stakeholders. The SCS intends to address the needs of vulnerable witnesses as a priority and will build on the platform of this provision to examine opportunities to extend the use of video technology within the terms of current and future legislation and to apply it to other types of procedure and hearings, including family hearings. I can give Mr Campbell the commitment that the matter is being taken forward for the particular community in which he lives. However, it is also the case that the Scottish Court Service, in conjunction with the judiciary, is seeking to extend video technology as much as possible in order to make justice better and simpler and to provide protection, especially for vulnerable witnesses.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of mobile banks, mobile libraries, mobile breast-screening units and mobile magnetic resonance imaging scanning units, all of which can be moved by road to appropriate destinations. Has he considered the possibility of creating similar mobile court facilities as an alternative to videolinks to meet the legitimate concerns of people, particularly witnesses, about having to travel very long distances to give evidence?
That is an interesting thought. It would not be a matter for my domain, because ultimately it is one for the Lord President and the Scottish Court Service. However, Mr Scott’s suggestion is an appropriate one, and courts have always had the ability to be mobile. For example, as a defence agent, I have in the past taken evidence in people’s houses and attended at people’s hospital beds when sheriffs took evidence there. Therefore, such mobility is available when there is a clear need for it because individuals are unable to attend court, as Mr Scott will have seen even on television when locus visits are carried out.
I refer the cabinet secretary to the closure of Peebles sheriff court and to page 6 of the document “Proposed Joint Feasibility Study to Review Future Delivery of Justice Services in the Scottish Borders”, which states:
The work on technology is on-going. As I mentioned to Mr Campbell, it relates not simply to the courts that are due for closure, but to the making justice work programme across the judicial sector in Scotland. These matters are not an either/or; they are not mutually contradictory. I understand that the Scottish Court Service has already had bilateral discussions with Scottish Borders Council and that a remit for a feasibility study has been agreed between the Court Service, the council and justice organisations to assess the most efficient, effective and economically advantageous method of future provision of an integrated justice service for the Borders. The feasibility study group has met and is taking forward wider engagement with Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and other such organisations.
Road Safety Education
Police Scotland is committed to partnership working on road safety issues. It has established the trunk roads unit, supported by 14 divisional road traffic units, to ensure that there is national co-ordination of local delivery of roads policing.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the principle of preventative spend should apply to road safety as well as to other areas and that police investment in road safety education is a good way in which to spend to save? If so, how will Police Scotland continue to do that work in regions such as the north-east, where the police have previously been active in road safety education? In particular, how will the police approach community planning in order to continue the good work that Grampian Police did as a community planning partner?
I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment for the police. If Mr Macdonald has a particular question, he will no doubt put it to Mr Murray, who is head of the road policing unit. However, it is appropriate to point out that road safety is taken very seriously not just by the police but by the Government. In addition, section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 places a statutory duty on local authorities to promote road safety, undertake studies of road accidents and take steps to both reduce and prevent accidents. As a former transport minister, Mr Macdonald will be aware of that, and doubtless he will have taken it on board as a former justice spokesman.
Road safety has, until now, involved a multi-agency partnership. Five core partners are defined in statute for the community planning process, the police being one of them. What does the future hold for community planning in the light of the chief constable’s reported view that Police Scotland is “not a solutions agency” but “a restraining agency”?
Having spoken to Steve House, I think that people should listen to what he says and not necessarily what he is reported or alleged to have said.
Before I call Stewart Maxwell for question 3, I must tell members that I really want to make progress through the questions and would therefore very much appreciate brief questions and answers.
Injury Surveillance Programme
Following the success of the assault injury surveillance model in Lanarkshire, the Scottish Government has recognised that the programme could be very valuable to both NHS Scotland and Police Scotland. We are working with a range of partners under the building safer communities programme to reduce harm to communities and to roll the programme out. In short, a project is under way that includes a national assault injury surveillance programme.
As the cabinet secretary will be aware, I first raised the issue of injury surveillance in 2005 and I remain committed to the belief that the measure will be effective. According to figures from the first year of trials at three NHS Lanarkshire sites, unreported crime is falling faster than reported crime and crime overall is steadily decreasing. I recently wrote to the cabinet secretary to urge the Government to press ahead with the implementation of an injury surveillance system across all national health service boards. What challenges has the Government faced in rolling out such a system?
I am grateful to Mr Maxwell for raising the issue and acknowledge his long-standing commitment to it. Although there have been problems with data sharing, they are being overcome and, in partnership with the violence reduction unit, we are now seeking to roll the project out nationally. I am grateful for the Lanarkshire pilot and Mr Maxwell’s support and endeavour in driving the issue forward. I assure him that we are seeking to build on that commitment.
Question 4 in the name of Mike MacKenzie has been withdrawn. The member has provided an explanation.
Scottish Court Service
I meet the chief executive of the Scottish Court Service regularly. The last formal meeting was on 26 March, when I was given an update on SCS plans.
In the past three financial years, offenders in Scotland have received a staggering 450,000 warning letters for defaulting on their fines. On top of that, 200,000 court citations and 90,000 arrest warrants were issued for non-payment between 2009 and 2012 and, in my constituency, three offenders have amassed nearly 100 unpaid fines among them. Does the cabinet secretary accept that those figures show a serious weakness in our justice system? What is he going to do to address this serious problem?
I read Mr McNeil’s press release prior to his question and can only indicate the following response: 89 per cent of the value of sheriff court fines imposed between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2012 has been paid or is on track to be paid. This Government, through the Court Service is delivering. Changes have been made to improve the system that we inherited from our predecessors—for example, by allowing earnings to be arrested and people’s caravans, cars and so on to be taken—and fine enforcement officers are delivering.
Average Speed Cameras (A96)
We have no plans to install average speed cameras on the A96 trunk road.
I thank the minister for that response and I am relieved to hear it, because similar opposition to that expressed in respect of the average speed cameras on the A9 has been expressed in Aberdeenshire in respect of average speed cameras on the A96.
I would be happy to discuss the issue in more detail with Nanette Milne. The question was about the A96 and, while there are no plans to install average speed cameras on the A96, the member will be aware of the safety improvements that have already been made on the A96 trunk road and the further improvements that are planned, including a recommendation to reduce the speed limit.
Business Rates Incentivisation Scheme
I can confirm that Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders took the decision, at their meeting at the end of May, that they did not want to consider the review of the 2012-13 business rates incentivisation scheme targets until the final non-domestic rates audited figures for 2012-13 are available. I can confirm that those audited returns are not due to be submitted until 31 January 2014, with the final validation not expected until 28 February 2014.
The minister has confirmed that there is no agreement between councils and the Scottish Government that ministers were justified in the dramatic movement of the goalposts for the business rates scheme target that has meant that, for example, Aberdeen City Council will receive only £300,000 rather than £5.8 million to invest locally. When the review is concluded, will it mean that councils will be able to invest in one of the funds locally, and will the commitment that was given to councils by ministers be honoured?
Mr Baker has misrepresented the circumstances, I think. The same rules and the same agreement apply with respect to local authorities. They have asked for time to look at their own returns to ensure that they are properly audited, and the Scottish Government is more than happy to give them that time, so that they can make the right decisions with regard to this particular scheme.
Home Energy Efficiency Programmes
The HEEPS were launched on 1 April this year. To date, we have issued offers of grant for area-based schemes totalling just under £46 million, which will result in 25,000 to 30,000 households receiving around 40,000 measures to improve the energy efficiency of their home and help to tackle fuel poverty.
How many households have been helped by the scheme so far? Could the minister arrange for those figures to be collated?
Yes, we will collect those figures and we will certainly keep the member up to date. However, I can tell her that £2.2 million has been allocated to South Lanarkshire Council.