Plenary, 27 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, June 27, 2002

Official Report 734KB pdf

---

Peebles Sheriff Court

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3207, in the name of Christine Grahame, on Peebles sheriff court. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the threat of the permanent closure of Peebles Sheriff Court; further notes that the Minister for Justice is currently considering a report into the expenditure required to make the courthouse fully operational and intends to make his conclusion public soon, and further notes that the retention of the sheriff court at Peebles is supported by, inter alia, the Sheriff Principal of Lothian and Borders, the two sheriffs who sit there, the Society of Solicitors in the Shires of Selkirk and Peebles and the Faculty of Solicitors in Roxburghshire.

I am mystified as to why everybody is clearing the chamber. The debate will be startling and stunning. I have heard this called the graveyard slot, but I do not adhere to that view.

Seriously, I thank the Deputy Minister for Justice for his letter of yesterday, which clarifies why no formal response was made to the sheriff principal's report on the previous review of the courts system in the Borders and East Lothian. In a debate two years ago, the former Deputy Minister for Justice, Angus MacKay, said that a formal response would be made. In his letter, the current deputy minister says that no formal response was made because

"Ministers accepted the recommendations of the Sheriff Principal in their entirety and there were no further matters to report to the Parliament at that time.

It is unfortunate that we have to re-visit the future of Peebles Sheriff Court once again but, as I will explain in the Debate, the situation with which we are now faced is very different from that which applied in January 2000."

I feel that I should sit down and hear what the minister has to say, so that I can respond, but I will press on to say why I think that we are in the same situation as applied in January 2000. I speak not only because I represent the South of Scotland, but because I have an interest in justice matters from my days in practice and as convener of the Justice 1 Committee.

The press release on the debate to which I referred reported that Angus MacKay said:

"I am able to advise the Parliament today that Sheriff Principal Nicholson's Report was received by officials in the Scottish Executive last week … Ministers will need a little longer to consider the Executive's response to the Sheriff Principal's Report. But I have listened to what members have said in this debate and I have a good deal of sympathy for the principle arguments which underlie the motion. The Minister for Justice and myself will reflect on what has been said today. But I think I can assure Members now that there is no prospect of this administration bringing forward proposals for closure of Duns and Peebles Sheriff Courts. I end with an undertaking that our formal response"—

I referred to that—

"to the Sheriff Principal's Report will be made known to the Parliament in due course."

Of course, I focused on the words "no prospect". If there is no prospect, there is no prospect. I ask Richard Simpson, who is, unfortunately, present, whether that has the same ambiguity of meaning as the phrase "absolute disaster" does. Will we see something different?

In his letter of 15 May to me, on the survey of Peebles sheriff court, the Minister for Justice said:

"I hope to reach a conclusion on this matter before the summer."

It appears from press releases from other members that a consultation is to be held of the Borders people. Unfortunately, the Minister for Justice did not share that information with me, for some reason. Perhaps I have different lines of communication—let us put it like that—from those that my Liberal Democrat colleagues have. If a consultation is to be held, it will mark a change from conclusion to consultation. It would be nice to have been told that by a source other than the press.

That said, I welcome a proper consultation—I hope that it will be that. However, to suggest, as the press releases to which I referred do, that the public should come up with alternative venues is ridiculous. That route has already been explored and rejected. A letter of 18 January from the Scottish Court Service to Andy Crawley says:

"As you narrate, alternative local venues for the hearing of Peebles court business were considered and all regarded as unsuitable. Alternative accommodation must be suitable for the hearing of criminal and civil court business and as you will be aware this extends to more than a decent sized courtroom. With your experience as a practising Solicitor I am sure you will agree that ancillary accommodation is required for the Sheriff, Clerk of Court, Procurator Fiscal, Solicitors and Witnesses. Secure accommodation for prisoners in custody is paramount."

I do not know where we will look in Peebles for that alternative accommodation, because a courthouse is a specialised venue—more so these days.

Even at the moment, the position in Peebles is very unsatisfactory. Prisoners are being escorted in handcuffs from the police station across the main road and into the courthouse—innocent until proven guilty—in full view of the public. We are not back at the turn of the century. That must end.

In the legal fraternity, the opposition to the closure of court facilities in Peebles is unanimous, as detailed in part in the motion. Those opposed to closure include the sheriff principal, the sitting sheriffs, the Sheriffs Association, the Faculty of Solicitors in Roxburghshire, the Society of Solicitors in the Shires of Selkirk and Peebles and the Peebles citizens advice bureau. To enable a different slant to be given to the matter, I will quote from a letter from the CAB, dated 27 May, which gives its support for the keeping of the sheriff court. The letter states:

"The judicial process is stressful enough for lay people with little or no experience of court appearances, without the added strain of difficult and expensive journeys to unfamiliar surroundings.

We have always seen it as one of the additional advantages of a local court that we can advise clients to prepare for a hearing (of whatever kind and whether they are defender, pursuer or witness) by attending the court beforehand to see how it operates."

When I was in practice, I did that with people in civil cases, who were perhaps in a reparation action and found themselves at the Court of Session. It was invaluable to take the client to look at the courthouse, to show them where they would be standing and tell them about the procedures. People are often put into those situations completely unprepared. They think that it will be like something that they have seen on the television, either from the States or in a drama. They do not know what is going to happen and, if they have seen the courthouse, it makes a huge difference to their confidence in appearing.

The letter from the CAB makes another serious point about small claims actions. It states:

"Although the CAB represents in Small Claims actions, our resources are also very restricted. As you know, Small Claims often require several appearances at court and we have reluctantly had to refuse representation to clients recently because of the time (and expense) required on the 20 mile round trip to Selkirk. However helpful the sheriff is in explaining court procedures to litigants, as the CAB rep, I know from personal experience that having a representative or adviser can make all the difference".

Those are very serious matters. I have a letter from a solicitor, which cites the case of three defence witnesses who all live in the Broughton area. On average, they would have to travel 40 miles to and from the court to Selkirk. Public transport is impractical in the Borders. It might be half-reasonable for someone to get to Selkirk if they live in Peebles, but not if they live on the outskirts and have to get to Peebles in the first place. The solicitor goes so far as saying that

"the fabric of the Court building in Peebles was deliberately neglected in a period of years running up to the review."

I must be quick. Do I have two minutes?

A minute and a half.

I challenge the figure of £1 million for the refurbishment. My understanding—no doubt the minister will address the matter—is that a substantial part of the money is to do with bringing the facilities into compliance with requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so that money would have had to have been spent no matter what.

There are other costs to people; there is not just the stress of travelling. People on benefits would require additional funding to get to a court elsewhere. Costs in legal aid, both civil and criminal, would have to go up. There are also costs in additional police time. The minister completely misunderstands the position with public transport in the Borders.

The strategy statement in the guidance leaflet from the Scottish Court Service says:

"Our purpose is to help secure ready access to justice for the people of Scotland, delivering a high quality service to all who use the courts."

There is no ready access if there is no court in Peebles. I ask the minister three questions. Will the minister stand by the balance outlined in the Minister for Justice's parliamentary answer to me? He stated:

"In addition to the cost of repair and upgrading, consideration will be given to the level of business transacted at the court and the impact on court users will be taken into account in determining the most effective means to provide court services".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 3 April 2002; p 352.]

I focus on "impact on court users". Will the minister confirm that, whatever the case with the current building, a court facility will remain in Peebles? Finally, will he advise whether he has ruled out new build in Peebles?

I do not mean to be personal, Presiding Officer, but I am sorry that Sir David Steel is not here. He and I have had the honour of being selected as warden of Neidpath, one of the principals in the Peebles Beltane festival, whose duties include making a public address, which often involves comments on community matters. Last week, this year's warden, Hugh Gilmore, picked out two issues that threaten the status and identity of the royal burgh of Peebles. The first was the proposed redrawing of parliamentary boundaries, which will put Peebles in an amorphous and incoherent constituency. The new constituency will yoke Tweeddale with communities with which it has only tenuous links. The second issue was the threat of permanent closure that faces Peebles sheriff court. On both those issues, it seems that bureaucrats are at work and are making recommendations that allow crude numbers and administrative convenience to take precedence over the essential nature of the service that they are charged with providing. That appears to be the case, although I hope that it is not.

Those two matters are of great substance and importance for the people of Peebles and the district of Tweeddale. It is not acceptable if what we inelegantly call the numbers game becomes more important than issues of democracy and justice. At the heart of the debate is the principle of accessibility to justice for the people whom it is designed to serve. The Executive is committed to that principle. When Elish Angiolini spoke recently to justices of the peace in the Borders, she emphasised the importance of local justice. I know that Jim Wallace values that principle and that he would not happily make any decision that would impair the accessibility of the service that he oversees.

Members might be aware that only three years ago, Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson oversaw a consultation process that reviewed sheriff court provision in East Lothian and the Borders. In his final report, Sheriff Principal Nicholson rejected the proposal to close Peebles court. Murray Tosh and I contributed to that consultation, although I do not think that Christine Grahame did.

I will quote from the report. It stated that there was

"an unanswerable case against the closure of Duns Sheriff Court"

and that similar comments had been received about Peebles. The report stated:

"Those comments raised considerations such as the need for accessible local justice, transport problems, the desirability of having the same boundaries for district courts and sheriff courts, the extra costs"

and

"the loss of local press reporting of court cases".

The report points out the increasing size of the local population, the fact that court users are less likely to have cars and the

"difficulty in finding suitable accommodation for the district court."

There was also a problem with storing records that are presently stored in Peebles sheriff court. Sheriff Principal Nicholson mentioned "the many adverse considerations" that consultees had brought to his notice and concluded:

"Peebles Sheriff Court should remain open."

The arguments that held sway at that time still apply today. I highlight the difficulties of using public transport, such as the distances and the difficulty of making connections. There are problems of time and expense for police, solicitors and witnesses. We must also take into account other activities that are carried out in the building, such as means inquiry courts, and the requirements of the district court.

The new element in the equation is the discovery of dry rot in the sheriff court building. At a recent meeting with the Minister for Justice and Scottish Court Service officials, the problems that arise from the dry rot were made clear to me. A substantial expense is involved: the building will be difficult and expensive to renovate in a way that will provide a court facility that meets the highest modern standards. As Christine Grahame said, the way in which prisoners are taken across the road is not acceptable. The court is a listed building and is important for the visual amenity of the High Street; repairs will have to be done, for which grants might be available. It would be utterly wrong for the Scottish Court Service to walk away from its responsibilities to the building.

Peebles sheriff court is not the busiest court in Scotland—perhaps that should be a source of congratulation and pleasure—but I stand firm and four-square on the issue of accessibility to local justice. The sheriff court as an institution and a service must continue to exist and work in Peebles. I welcome the decision to issue full documentation, which will allow an informed consultation process. I hope that the minister will give us details of the timing and scale of the consultation.

I welcome Jim Wallace's categorical assurance—which he gave to me in person—that he has no plans to establish a central court in the Borders. Such a court would threaten the existence of local courts. I also welcome the minister's assurance that every possibility to secure a continuation of local delivery of the sheriff court service in Peebles can be explored. I assure him that he will receive strong representations from all stakeholders, including community organisations, to secure a positive outcome.

I remind members that not only is Peebles in my constituency, it is my home town. Since the threat to the sheriff court arose, I have repeatedly made it clear that I cannot accept a decision that impairs the quality and accessibility of the delivery of justice to the people of Peebles and Tweeddale. I urge the minister to allow us to engage in a genuine dialogue. We must secure something positive from the consultation, or it will be worthless and counterproductive.

I am pleased that Christine Grahame has managed to secure a debate on this topic, at the tail-end of term. It is a matter of great regret to me that it is necessary again to debate the matter, because we discussed it fully at the beginning of 2000. At that point, we were discussing—in a rather different context—the possibility that closure of two of the courts in the Borders might give rise to revenue savings, which I think detailed scrutiny proved was likely to be at best optimistic and at worst outweighed by the additional costs that would be imposed on other stakeholders. All members who participated in that debate, as well as communities throughout the Borders, were delighted when, at the end of the debate, Angus MacKay, then the Deputy Minister for Justice, gave the assurance:

"there is no prospect of this Administration bringing forward proposals for the closure of Duns and Peebles sheriff courts."—[Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol 4, c 63.]

Today we discuss that proposal in a rather different context. We are no longer considering revenue costs, but capital costs. I do not quite agree with the point that was made by Ian Jenkins—although I respect his argument—because I do not think that the discovery of dry rot in the courthouse makes any impact whatever on the situation.

The court is not a listed building because it enjoys Crown immunity, but if the Executive were ever to attempt to dispose of a surplus property, it would find that, if it did not itself undertake the £400,000 of work that is needed to combat the dry rot in the building, that cost would have to be imposed on the prospective purchaser, which would inevitably impact on the purchase price. In fact, someone would probably have to be paid to develop the site.

Therefore, the Executive will, in one form or another, pay for the dry rot costs. The issue is the £1 million or so of works that are necessary to bring the courthouse up to standard. That has to be placed in the context of the work that the Executive is doing all over Scotland to bring sheriff courts up to modern-day standards, whether in respect of disability legislation or in respect of other factors.

I remember from when I was a councillor that there were identical issues around the district court that was situated in the chamber of the listed building in the Sandgate in Ayr, which then belonged to Kyle and Carrick District Council. We spent about £200,000 bringing that court up to standard—providing proper access, separating defence and prosecution witnesses, creating separate entrances and providing for people with disability. How much is £1 million for providing justice of a modern-day standard to the community of Peebles? Bearing in mind that comparison with the courthouse in Ayr, that is the question that the Scottish Executive must ask.

Ian Jenkins challenged the Executive on the issue of having a central Borders courthouse. I do not think that the Borders community would accept that. If the Executive were to consult on that, it would find absolute resistance to such a proposal.

If the Executive is not prepared to consider the issue strategically, I challenge it to do what is necessary: to secure the continuation of the administration of justice in all communities in which it is administered at the moment. Such sheriff courts are essentially the centres of the former counties of the Borders, and their jurisdictions respect the identities of the former burghs of the Borders. Ministers and other members must appreciate and understand the extent to which the buildings, the services and the institutions belong to the respective communities, and they must understand the bitterness and frustration that would be felt there if the services were withdrawn.

I appeared in Peebles sheriff court once. I am delighted to say that it was closed at the time—it was the caretaker who showed me round. I thought that it had a certain charm and attractiveness. However, I appreciate the fact that it is quite unsuitable for modern requirements, and that what looked a quaint piece of Scottish vernacular architecture, both internally and externally, must be brought up to date.

I do not have the local knowledge or connections of Ian Jenkins, but I would be prepared in principle to consider the argument that a different facility might be developed in Peebles if an alternative venue could be found. The critical thing is not the building but the continuation of the service, which would recognise the community status of Peebles and Peebles-shire. The £1 million would be well invested because it would confirm that the Executive shares in that respect for the town. I hope that the absence of the Minister for Justice, who was present on the previous occasion, is not an ominous sign. I also hope that the junior minister will be in a position to give the guarantees that were given then.

Let me conclude by reminding the minister that, on the previous occasion, the Executive clearly said that it would not look at the alteration of court services except where movements in population and other demographic changes came into play. Peebles is in an area of population expansion that is under some pressure in other respects. If the Executive were to lift that pressure by respecting the viability of the community and valuing its history, we would all support and applaud such a gesture. I hope that the minister will ultimately be able to deliver that.

I fully support my colleague Christine Grahame's motion and endorse the sentiments that she, Ian Jenkins and Murray Tosh have expressed. As Ian Jenkins rightly pointed out, the fact that Peebles sheriff court is not the busiest court does not necessarily mean that it should be denigrated. As one who has appeared in many courts, I can say that the busiest court is probably Glasgow district court or Glasgow sheriff court. Glasgow district court is certainly not a court that I would want to be replicated elsewhere in the country.

Murray Tosh made an important point about revenue and cost. The fact is that democracy does not come cheap. The potential closure of Peebles sheriff court is not simply about the judicial process or expediting the way in which petty or serious crime is dealt with. Fundamentally, the issue concerns how a democratic society works. Sheriff courts are part of the apparatus of state at the local level. A visible court presence gives citizens a clear sense of security. Such things are not simply about how we deal with those who transgress the law. People must have the opportunity to make representations on things such as housing matters within the court, where they can have their rights redressed. 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. Such a system gives reassurance and satisfaction to residents.

Clearly, nothing can be written in tablets of stone. As Murray Tosh pointed out, the Executive's position was that consideration would need to be given to any clear demographic shifts. As one who grew up in Linlithgow and practised in the sheriff court there, I am aware of the shift in population from the north of that county to the south of that county. Quite correctly, that has resulted in the opening of a sheriff court in Livingston, to which the resources will doubtless move in due course. We recognise that. However, the growth in the population of Peebles, to which Murray Tosh referred, shows that the situation in Peebles is quite distinct from that in West Lothian.

Peebles and its environs will grow, although it is unlikely to become a high crime spot. The crime used to come mainly from those who were passing through the town, whom I used to denigrate when I appeared as a practitioner in the sheriff court. I remember one particular time, when the clientele that I was appearing for came down and suggested that a cordon might solve some of the problem. At the end of the day, the people in Peebles and Tweeddale are entitled to a court on their doorstep.

There is more than one way to deal with the court's method of operation. Although the current position is that the resident procurator fiscal has moved out, courts should not be run on the basis of what is best for the prosecution service. The position of the procurator fiscal is but one factor in an array of things that must be taken into account. Indeed, the procurators fiscal in Edinburgh are able to deal with such matters and the sheriffs are able to come down from Edinburgh to Peebles. Moreover, if further security is required for serious offenders, we have the ability to move people to various courts if security is not adequate in Peebles.

We need to recognise the importance to the community of retaining the sheriff court in Peebles. 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. Obviously, we need to take cognisance of the growth in communities and demographic change elsewhere, but that does not affect Peebles. If the question comes down to pounds, shillings and pence, we must do what we can to recognise that no judicial system can have an infinite budget but, ultimately, affordable steps can be taken that would allow the court to remain open to continue serving the local population. Any questions of security costs for a particular case could be dealt with by removing such a case to another court.

I endorse the cross-party points that have been made and ask the Executive to take cognisance of them. Perhaps the minister, who indicated that the Executive would take cognisance of clear demographic matters, will bear that in mind.

I congratulate Christine Grahame on obtaining this members' business debate. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the future of Peebles sheriff court, which is clearly a matter of local concern. The debate provides an opportunity for those concerns to be aired and the facts of the matter to be discussed.

Before I respond to some of the direct challenges from members, I will establish some facts about the matter that may help us to set the issue in context.

It was some three years ago that the sheriff principal of Lothian and Borders undertook a consultation exercise on sheriff court provision in East Lothian and the Borders. His concern was the organisation and distribution of court business in the area. One option covered by that consultation was the closure of Peebles sheriff court and the transfer of business to Edinburgh. However, in the light of the representations that he received, the sheriff principal concluded that the court should remain open. The potential limited savings from closure did not, in his view, outweigh the disadvantages. I believe that the projected savings were about £114,000 to £120,000.

The Scottish Executive accepted the sheriff principal's recommendations. As members have said, in a debate on 12 January 2000 my predecessor, Angus MacKay, made it clear that Scottish ministers would not close the court. Court business has continued to be dealt with in Peebles until recently. However, circumstances can and do change and when they do we sometimes have to reconsider previous decisions.

In the case of Peebles sheriff court, a routine maintenance inspection in November 2001 revealed an infestation of dry rot in the building. On further examination, it was confirmed that that was sufficiently extensive to call into question the safety of parts of the building. The suggestion that the building was deliberately neglected was not worthy of the debate.

A solicitor made that comment.

I know that Christine Grahame quoted someone else, but I think that the job of MSPs is to filter such remarks. I think that that particular remark is a slur on the court service and I rebut it.

Given the threat to the health and safety of those using the courthouse, the Scottish Court Service had no choice but temporarily to close the court and transfer the business elsewhere. Having examined the available options for continuing to run the court in Peebles, the Scottish Court Service concluded that a transfer of the business to Selkirk sheriff court was the only viable alternative that allowed access to all necessary facilities. Thus, since December 2001, all Peebles business has been successfully dealt with at Selkirk.

The Scottish Court Service commissioned a full investigation of the problem at Peebles to determine the extent and potential cost of remedial repairs. It also commissioned a feasibility study to examine the cost of bringing the courthouse up to modern standards as far as the building allows that to happen. Murray Tosh suggested rightly that that interesting building—which, I gather, is B listed, although I accept the point about it having Crown immunity—is not amenable to the full extent of the modern standards that we seek. The issue is not just about disabled access, to which Christine Grahame rightly alluded, but about the separation of witnesses, appropriate custody arrangements and several other matters that are important to a modern custodial system.

The detailed examination of the building confirmed that considerable work would be needed to bring the court back into operation and that the cost of work to remove and eradicate the dry rot and prevent its recurrence would amount to some £400,000. However, that would not secure any improvement in court facilities, but would simply make the building workable again. The cost of a scheme for the full renovation and repair of the building, including better facilities for witnesses and other court users, some provision for disabled access and a limited custody suite, would amount to about £1 million.

Given the nature of the building, which severely limits the options that are available, even that substantial investment would not deliver a modern courthouse. The courthouse would still lack a number of facilities that are considered essential nowadays for the safe and secure operation of court business.

The simple reality is that Peebles sheriff courthouse—although it is a fine historic building—no longer meets the requirements of a modern court and cannot be adapted to that standard. That may be a matter for regret—I am sure that it is; Ian Jenkins indicated that the citizens of Peebles will regret that fact—but it is a fact that we must consider. The building will remain and will, I hope, be used for other purposes.

Members have argued strongly for the continuation of court business at Peebles. I understand their concern that justice should continue to be delivered locally. However, although it may be convenient to call for more investment at any price, the Scottish Executive cannot ignore its responsibility to ensure that the funds that the Parliament makes available are used in ways that provide value for money. We have a duty to balance local interests with the more general interests of taxpayers. In light of the volume of business that the Peebles court conducts, it is very difficult—not to say impossible—to see how investment on the scale that is required to re-open it can be justified.

As members know, the justice department has been given some money, which the Minister for Finance and Public Services announced yesterday. That money includes £3 million for modernising the courts. However, there are really serious problems at some of the courts—such as Stirling and Kirkcaldy, which are very busy courts—and in other parts of the estate that need to be addressed. The broader requirements of providing justice to all our citizens sometimes have to take precedence over the understandable desires of local citizens to maintain the tradition of justice being served in their immediate locality.

I fully understand the situation that local members present. However, change is a fact of life and an unwillingness to consider any change does not justify substantial public funds being spent to maintain the status quo. If the level of business at the court were significant, one would have to consider seriously the possibility of a modern court. A crucial fact to consider is that the courthouse operated significantly under capacity, even in its present condition, until it was closed in December. It sat one day per week for less than two hours on average. In 2000-01, it sat for a little over 100 hours in the full year.

I estimate that, including capital charges, the costs of running the courthouse, if £1 million was spent to bring it close to, but not actually up to modern standards, would approach £200,000 for 100 hours of justice. That is a hugely expensive undertaking.

The court heard only 10 summary trials and two jury trials in 2000-01. In 2001-02, Peebles sheriff court business took up some 80 hours of court time, with seven summary trials and no jury trials being heard. Even the amount of court time used has been reducing, which—as Ian Jenkins said—is to be welcomed.

I simply say that I have from the sheriff clerk's office the court time figures from 1999-2000 through to 2001-02. I do not know whether we are talking about the same figures. It looks to me as if the amount of court time used has been pretty static over that period, apart from criminal summary complaints, which went up from 12 in 1999-2000 to 20 in 2001-02. The amount of court time used has not fallen. According to the figures that I have from the sheriff clerk, it has been static or has risen.

I will write to Christine Grahame on that once I have clarified it. However, I have been advised that the amount of court time used was a little over 100 hours in 2000-01 and some 85 hours in 2001-02.

Other court business is also well below the levels that are needed to justify the continued presence of a courthouse at Peebles. I have examined the distribution of courts. Dumfries and Galloway, which is a large area, has three courts. The Borders, respecting the tradition of the county boundaries, has four courts. They are there because of the history, but if we were starting from scratch, would we have four courts in the Borders? I confirm that we have no intention of developing a supercourt. That is correct. We intend to maintain Jedburgh sheriff court, the Duns extension from Jedburgh and the Selkirk sheriff court.

Given the change in circumstances and the low level of business transacted at the court, it is only right that the question of how court services are delivered to the people of Peebles and Tweeddale should now be re-examined. As I said, the volume of business at the court does not justify the investment that would be needed to bring the current courthouse back into operation. Neither would it support the provision of a new full courthouse in Peebles. Instead, we need to examine other options and to consult the local community, so that its views can be taken into account before a final decision is made.

Accordingly, the Deputy First Minister has asked the Scottish Court Service to consult on three options for future provision: first, transferring the full business of the court from Peebles to Edinburgh sheriff court; secondly, transferring the full business of the court permanently to Selkirk sheriff court; and thirdly, providing for summary criminal business to be heard at Peebles, if suitable alternative accommodation can be leased for that purpose, with the remainder of the business being transferred to Selkirk or Edinburgh. If I interpreted what he was saying correctly, Kenny MacAskill appeared to suggest that the third option should be considered.

The options recognise that the capacity exists in both Edinburgh and Selkirk sheriff courts to take over Peebles business. The temporary arrangements at Selkirk have worked successfully since they were introduced and could continue. Such an approach would have the advantage of retaining business within the Borders, rather than displacing it to Edinburgh—which was a concern when this issue was raised previously.

On the other hand, ministers recognise the strong local feeling that sheriff court cases should continue to be heard in Peebles, if possible. As Christine Grahame pointed out, investigations have not yet revealed a suitable venue that would provide the space and security that is necessary to hold trials. However, if the local community can identify such a venue, the Scottish Court Service is willing to discuss with Scottish Borders Council, the police and other partners in the justice system whether that venue can be used as and when required by the court.

The Minister for Justice has asked the Scottish Court Service to issue a consultation paper as soon as possible setting out the background to the problem, detailing what the court requires of an alternative venue in Peebles, and seeking the views of court users and the public more generally on the options available. I assure members that we will give very careful consideration to the views that are expressed.

On the previous occasion that this issue was debated, Angus MacKay said:

"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"—[Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol 4, c 62.]

The minister appears to be ruling out absolutely the retention of the current courthouse. What assurances can he give us about the future of that building? I am reluctant to accept what he says.

I do not know Peebles very well, although I have been to the Peebles Hotel Hydro on a number of occasions. I should not advertise in the Parliament, but I enjoyed my time there. I have, however, examined photographs of Peebles and know that the courthouse is situated at the bottom of the high street, next to a church, and that it has a very prominent view. The courthouse is an important building for Peebles. I cannot give the member any guaranteed undertakings, but I know that the Scottish Court Service will want to ensure that the building is marketed in a way that will allow it to be brought into effective use. As Murray Tosh indicated, we understand that the cost of dealing with the dry rot will be offset against the purchase price paid by any future user. However, Ian Jenkins is right—in effect, we are saying that the courthouse cannot be brought up to standard.

There are no plans to centralise court provision in the Borders. The recent speculation in the press is without foundation and tantamount to scaremongering. When people whinge all the time about the Borders, instead of talking about the good things that are happening down there, that undermines the confidence of people in the area.

The Scottish Executive is committed to improving access to justice. Contrary to the impression that some members have given, the problem in Peebles does not lend itself to an easy solution. We need to take a realistic and hard-headed approach, and to show a willingness to seek innovative solutions that continue to provide cost-effective services to all court users. We will carry out the consultation to which I referred.

That concludes this debate on Peebles sheriff court. I wish everyone a good and productive summer.

Meeting closed at 17:49.