Topical Questions
Scottish Court Service (Court Closures)
The consultation is being led by the Scottish Court Service and sets out its proposals for the future structure of our courts. Any final proposal to close courts will need to come before Parliament, most likely in spring 2013, and I am therefore not prejudging the outcome of the current consultation process for any specific proposal.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has been hiding behind the process for almost a year now. At every stage he has told us that there are no proposals to close courts, but there always have been. He told me that I could attend consultation meetings, but there were none. He told me that the Lord President would engage with me on the issue and the arguments for my local court in Haddington, but the Lord President said that he could not do that. What reassurance can the cabinet secretary give me that this latest consultation stage is anything more than a sham?
I do not think that Mr Gray recognises or understands the landscape that was created by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. The Parliament decided that the separation of powers was appropriate and important, and that there should be a differentiation and separation between the executive, the legislative and the judicial. It also recognised that it is important that the judiciary should be independent from political interference and that the judiciary are the people who are best placed to deal with the Scottish Court Service.
Frankly, if the cabinet secretary thinks that the proposals are a response to changes in the way in which we live, it is he who does not understand how the court system for which he is responsible operates in modern Scotland. The proposals will undermine the viability of towns such as Haddington in my constituency, condemn victims and witnesses to lengthy and expensive journeys, take police off our local streets for longer, and create barriers to civil redress for our citizens. The truth is that this is a cost-saving exercise that has nothing to do with providing the access to justice that people in modern Scotland need, require and deserve. Will the justice secretary listen to my constituents and the users of my local court, and will he put them, rather than his bottom line, first?
Many of Mr Gray’s worries are legitimate. We should be trying to ensure that courts are as proximate as they can be, and that we take into account the cost of travel to people who work there and those who have to give evidence or appear there. That is why I suggest that Mr Gray would be well advised to read the document, particularly the chapters that relate to Haddington. As I recall, there is a clear statement of the cost, time and availability of transport from Musselburgh, Tranent and Prestonpans to Haddington, showing that it is cheaper, quicker and easier for people in those areas to go to Edinburgh than it is for them to go to Haddington. Mr Gray would do well to read the consultation document, to consider whether the needs and wants of his constituents in those parts might be better served by going to Edinburgh, and thereafter, perhaps, to give the Lord President the dignity of his office and engage more meaningfully with him.
The consultation is proposing the closure of the Dingwall sheriff court and the moving of business to Inverness. However, neither Dingwall nor Inverness is fit for purpose to deal with cases in the 21st century. In my response to the consultation, I will propose that a brand new court be built in the inner Moray Firth area in Dingwall to replace the courts in Dingwall and Inverness. Of course, for that to happen, capital funding will need to be provided. Will the cabinet secretary look seriously at that as an option?
Again, those matters should be put to the Scottish Court Service. The service accepts Mr Thompson’s point that the current facilities in Inverness and Dingwall have limitations, and I am sure that it would welcome the opportunity to have new purpose-built court facilities to replace some of its older and less flexible sites, but the financial situation is such that funding new facilities will be extremely challenging in the short to medium term. However, if local stakeholders believe that a business model exists that could fund a new court using proceeds from finding new uses for the existing buildings, I encourage those stakeholders to engage with the Scottish Court Service on that. It is clear that the current buildings cause great difficulties. I urge Mr Thompson to discuss the matter with the Scottish Court Service—he might find a willingness to see whether we can work towards shared solutions.
If a court closes, as is proposed in the case of Arbroath in my constituency, and the business that it conducts is transferred to a neighbouring court—in this case, Forfar—will some or all of the jobs at the court that is to be closed transfer over with that business?
There is a clear expectation that the jobs will follow the work. There will not be less work; it will just be conducted in a more productive manner and in buildings that are more suited for the purpose. I can give staff an assurance that the Scottish Court Service proposals are that staff who currently work in a court that is designated to close will simply move to where the work is due to take place.
In light of the fact that the Scottish Court Service consultation states that it cannot close courts of its own hand and that that is the decision of the Scottish ministers, will the Scottish Government reconsider the proposal to remove jury trials from Kirkcaldy, given that the consultation recognises that Kirkcaldy is the most appropriate location for a sheriff and jury centre serving east Fife?
As Claire Baker will know, the decision is not for the Scottish ministers but for the Scottish Parliament. However, it is my responsibility to bring those matters to the Parliament once the Scottish Court Service and the Lord President have carried out their duties. The review deals not only with the proposed closure of some courts, including sheriff and justice of the peace courts, but with aspects relating to where the High Court sits on circuit and to where jury trials are carried out. Those matters are best dealt with by people contributing to the consultation, which is not yet finished, and discussing with the Lord President and the Scottish Court Service to see what actions can be taken from there. Thereafter, a formal consideration can be made, ultimately, by the Parliament.
I remind the cabinet secretary that Peebles sheriff court, which is on the current hit list, was targeted for closure several years ago by the Labour-Liberal Administration and got a reprieve by relocating to Rosetta Road and co-locating with the police headquarters. I would like that to be taken into consideration. Further, of the 12 cases in Peebles sheriff court tomorrow—the one day of the week when it sits for civil business—five are in the small claims court. Those are party litigants. In considering removing sheriff courts, one should consider the interests of party litigants.
Absolutely. That is why, as I said in response to Iain Gray, the Scottish Court Service has considered where the people who appear in courts, to give evidence or as jurors, come from. Party litigants are a particular aspect that must be dealt with. Equally, we must deal with the issues for those who are cited to give evidence or to sit on juries. Those aspects must be considered in the round. It is clear that transport issues and the nature of communities change, whether that is through the opening up of the A1 in East Lothian or perhaps the improvement of roads in the Borders or the construction of the Borders railway. The document is a consultation, so we should not prejudge matters; we should do the Lord President the honour of allowing the consultation to take place. I am certain that Christine Grahame’s points will be taken on board, because it is appropriate that we ensure that people can access justice as easily as possible.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise the wider impact on county towns such as Stonehaven in Kincardineshire or Haddington in Iain Gray’s constituency of proposals that local people should no longer look to those towns for local access to justice? Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that a town court can be just as important as a village school to a community’s sense of identity and, if so, that that is a matter for the Government as well as for the Scottish Court Service?
I am glad that Mr Macdonald raised that issue because I am extremely knowledgeable about those matters.
I am concerned about the interaction with the police, because the police are a can-do organisation that will say, when consulted, that they will do anything that needs to be done. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that the police will be specifically consulted in such a way that they do not respond on a can-do basis but are allowed to give serious advice on the implications of courts moving from A to B or B to C, so that we have the officers on the streets rather than waiting somewhere else to be called to court?
I assure Nigel Don that the police are consulted on such matters. Indeed, informally and anecdotally, my experience with the police is that they take the view that the less travel they have to various places, the better. Equally, some courts are no longer fit for purpose in terms of safety or security. We have also seen changes in how people are detained in custody. We must have a synergy in those matters between where people are detained and the courts at which they are to appear. The police are already ahead of the game in reducing the number of places where people are held, and that must tie in with the pace at which they will be taken to an appearance from custody.
In Vitro Fertilisation (NHS Fife)
The national infertility group’s report, with recommendations on eligibility criteria, is expected to be with ministers by the end of December 2012. My preference would have been for all health boards to consider the implications of the report before making any announcements.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to £12 million of investment in IVF treatment, and I note the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing’s preference for NHS Fife to have delayed its decision. As I am sure he is aware, there are important issues relating to smoking, obesity and the number of treatment cycles. Will he confirm that the national infertility group will deal with those issues in its review?
I confirm that the national infertility group will make recommendations in the report on smoking, obesity and the rules on the number of IVF treatment cycles. I look forward to receiving the group’s report at the end of December.
Have any other NHS boards restricted access to IVF treatment for smokers, or is this just a cunning ploy by NHS Fife to reduce its already very long waiting lists?
It should be recognised that NHS Fife has invested an additional £100,000 in reducing its waiting list. Other boards have considered restrictions but, as I say, I would much prefer that we moved together once the report is available in December and the expert group has made its recommendations.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in almost half of Scotland’s health boards, IVF waiting times are increasing. In NHS Fife, couples are waiting three years before treatment, which is the longest waiting period in the country. Although the cabinet secretary’s announcement of additional funding is, of course, welcome—if long overdue—will he confirm that that funding will tackle the postcode lottery in treatment cycles and the cut-off age for treatment, as well as reducing waiting times?
I expect the report that I receive at the end of December to deal with all those issues. I am glad that Jackie Baillie welcomes the additional £12 million that Mr Matheson, the Minister for Public Health, announced at the weekend is to be invested in reducing waiting across Scotland. Before we are critical of waiting times, we must look at and take account of the increased throughput figures, too, although I accept that NHS Fife’s three-year waiting time is far too long.