Access to Justice
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01654, in the name of Iain Gray, on access to justice across Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the content of the Scottish Court Service document, Future Court Structures; expresses concern that the paper proposes closing up to 15 of Scotland’s 49 sheriff courts, including Haddington, and reducing the number of sheriff courts hosting jury trials from 47 to 14; has grave reservations about the potential impact that such a reduction in service could have on access to justice for communities across Scotland; believes that these proposals could make it harder for victims of crime and witnesses to get to court, and considers that any proposals for major changes to the court structure merit a full and robust consultation process to allow communities across Scotland to play a meaningful role in determining how justice is delivered in their areas.
17:32
This year is Charles Dickens’s bicentenary, and he once wrote:
“Charity begins at home, and justice begins next door.”
If justice is not only to be done but to be seen to be done, indeed, it must begin next door.
On 26 September, the Scottish Court Service issued a report on future court structures that was intended for discussion by those involved in our courts. The paper’s conclusions are the second iteration of a proposal to remove court services from many of Scotland’s communities. In fact, the proposals are drastic and involve the closure of 15 out of 49 sheriff courts and a reduction in the number of sheriff courts holding jury trials from 47 to 14. The report is absolutely explicit about the driver behind the proposals: cuts in the service’s budget of 6.9 per cent next year, 8.4 per cent the year after and 11.1 per cent in 2014-15. The proposals have nothing to do with justice; they are a cost-cutting exercise.
My particular concern is with Haddington sheriff and justice of the peace courts, which are both targeted for closure because of their so-called proximity—around 20 miles—to Edinburgh. However, I have no doubt that my reasons for opposing the closure of my local courts will apply in most or all of the communities that are threatened by the plans. I am sure that colleagues will take the chance this evening to speak up for their towns, too.
The closure of Haddington sheriff court might be an attractive cost-cutting measure for the Scottish Court Service, but it would be a significant blow to the people of East Lothian. After all, not just people on trial but victims and witnesses would face longer journeys and longer waits. Our justice system often fails victims and witnesses, without our imposing an additional cost in time and travel. We must also consider local police officers, who already spend too much time away from their front-line duties in the community but would have to be extracted for even longer so that they could give evidence. It is no wonder that Sheriff Peter Gillam said that closure would be “extremely detrimental”. He also pointed out that cases in Edinburgh sheriff court already face serious delays, without having the burden of additional work from East Lothian.
The issue is not just criminal cases. Citizens who seek recourse in civil law would find that such recourse was offered not next door but a significant distance away. Then there is the whole court supply chain; fiscals, lawyers and court workers could all go. Our local newspapers, the East Lothian News and East Lothian Courier, would find it hard to maintain their coverage of local cases. The papers are to be commended for their campaigning against the proposal. Justice must be not only done but seen to be done.
Haddington’s justice of the peace court would go, too. Such courts embody the principle of justice that is delivered in one’s own community by one’s peers. Lay justice was introduced in 1609 by James VI, precisely to protect the people and their communities from the high-handedness and arbitrary decisions of the elite—barons and lords, who could not be trusted to act in the interests of the people. We ask a lot of JPs, not least that they sit on the bench at least 12 times a year. There is no doubt that finding candidates in East Lothian who would be willing to discharge those duties would be made harder if JPs were required to sit in Edinburgh. The effect would be to make the other duties that they undertake more difficult.
The closure of Haddington court would diminish the actual and perceived effectiveness of the justice system in my constituency. If justice delayed is justice denied, justice displaced is also justice denied.
There is another point. Like many towns in Scotland, Haddington’s reasons for being have changed and been challenged over the centuries. It was a major port when the River Tyne was navigable—that is long gone. Its function as a market town in a rural county, which served farmers and farm workers, has also gone. It has been a shopping centre with a wide catchment area, but as we speak my town centre is fighting for its life in the face of supermarket developments and online shopping.
However, Haddington remains the administrative centre of East Lothian, and the court is a central component of its stature and standing. To remove the court would be to diminish the town a little more, to question its purpose a little more, to reduce its vibrancy a little more and to hurt its pride a lot. Some of us find it passing strange that a Government that concerns itself so centrally with the stature, strength and sustainability of the nation can seem so cavalier with the vitality and vigour of the small towns that make up so much of the nation.
Haddington has certainly had a court for 600 years and there is every reason to believe that there has been some kind of assize there since the 12th century. In some form or other, the court has survived the siege of Haddington, the reformation, Cromwell, the union, the industrial revolution and two world wars. It would be a tragedy if it did not survive this Scottish National Party Scottish Government.
I know that the minister will say that there are no firm proposals, that savings must be made and that there will be consultation. I certainly hope that there will be consultation.
I sympathise with many of the points that have been raised, but does the member accept that when the Lord President of the Court of Session gave evidence to the Justice Committee in November last year, he confirmed that 40 per cent of the Scottish Court Service’s expenditure went on maintaining court buildings?
I am sure that some of that is true, but I have tried to make the case this evening that the courts are not about the buildings, but about the justice that is served in our towns and communities. Consultation will be important if the proposals come forward, but I must be honest and say that the truth is that no consultation will convince the people of my town that justice should not begin next door and no saving will convince them that the compromise of their justice is justified.
The minister can end this now by telling the Scottish Court Service that Haddington wants, needs and deserves its court, and that the SCS should not waste her time by suggesting to her that she closes it.
Speeches should be of four minutes, please, as a number of members wish to speak in the debate.
17:40
I congratulate Iain Gray on securing the debate and on his robust defence of the case for keeping Haddington sheriff court open. I did the same when the Liberal-Labour coalition was going to close the sheriff courts at Peebles and Jedburgh, so we have been here before.
I return to Roderick Campbell’s intervention, just to give Iain Gray the facts on the Lord President’s evidence to the Justice Committee last year. He said:
“40 per cent of the Scottish Court Service’s expenditure is on court buildings, another 40 per cent is on the wages of staff, and there is a balance of 20 per cent. ... As some of those buildings are rather old, the maintenance costs are high.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 November 2011; c 390.]
The committee challenged the Lord President on the lengthy timescale for the SCS proposals. Committee members John Lamont, John Finnie and I—all with rural constituencies—also challenged him to give huge consideration to travel costs not just for witnesses and victims but for the police and the sheriffs, and to all the paraphernalia, as it were, that is required to deliver justice not just in criminal matters, as Iain Gray quite rightly said, but in civil matters. In the majority of cases, Scottish people are involved in the civil court because of cases involving, for example, matrimonial disputes, contact with children, small claims actions in which someone is suing a local tradesman, and so on.
The Lord President also said that the judicial members of the SCS board, which includes the Lord Justice Clerk, will
“consider what principles we ought to apply in the provision of court services in future.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 November 2011; c 390.]
They will take on board all the reasonable concerns that Iain Gray has expressed.
However, we must consider whether there is wastage in the justice budget. There is wastage in some processes and money can be saved by addressing that. For example, there are too many court hearings and too many postponed hearings. Those issues will be considered as part of the review.
We must also consider the state of the sheriff courts. Iain Gray referred to Dickens in his speech, and some of the SCS buildings are Dickensian. I have been in Haddington and Selkirk sheriff courts—I hasten to add that I appeared as a solicitor and was not in front of the bench for any other purpose—and I believe that they do not have proper facilities.
When I started in legal practice several years ago, I was shocked to find that witnesses for opposing sides in both criminal and civil cases would be in the same room, and sometimes the air could have been cut with a knife. For example, people who were involved in a bitter dispute over their children would sit facing each other, which is not suitable. In other courts, I do not know how anybody who was disabled got access. Moreover, there would not be proper facilities for parking at the court.
The issue is huge and long term. We want to get rid of some of the costs in the process for what is not needed, so that the money can be put back into, for example, extending legal aid to allow more people to have representation in court. Iain Gray made some good points, but he must consider the whole package. For example, videoconferencing could be used in some cases so that the police would not have to be brought to the sheriff court and, by agreement with both parties, individuals would not need to come, which would save costs.
I sympathise with Iain Gray’s defence of Haddington sheriff court. If the SCS tried to close Peebles sheriff court, I would say “Over my dead body.” Peebles is very much like Haddington, in that it has its own personality; it is a community that is fighting against the same kind of things as Haddington, such as supermarket developments, and is competing with other places—Edinburgh, in the case of Peebles. All that is true, but it is also true of places such as Peebles that if the sheriff court closed, access to justice would be extremely difficult for many people, particularly those who do not have their own transport.
I agree with all the points that Iain Gray made in that regard, but I ask him to consider, too, that in the 21st century our sheriff courts should be built so that they serve all the people properly. They should separate out witnesses, have proper facilities and give people access to justice and they should not cost an arm and a leg to heat and maintain. When the buildings were first put up, they were really threatening because they were big, terrifying baronial places that said to people, “Here’s the court.” However, we have got past those days. In fact, most of the people who are going into the courts do not want them to be threatening, baronial places. They want to be in civil courts, for example, in which they feel comfortable and justice is done.
I ask Iain Gray to look again at the issue and take some comfort from the fact that the Justice Committee will be robust in dealing with the issue when it comes before it.
17:45
First, I apologise because I have to leave the chamber before 6 pm and I will miss the minister’s closing remarks.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the future of our courts and I congratulate my colleague, Iain Gray, on securing parliamentary time to discuss an issue of importance to my constituency of Mid Scotland and Fife. I also welcome the opportunity to put on the record my concern about the proposals to close courts in my region that are contained in a document that the Scottish Court Service has produced.
The Government has been uncomfortable discussing the document “Future Court Structures”, which asks whether we can manage with fewer courts. According to the document, three courts in my region—Alloa sheriff court, Cupar sheriff court and Kirkcaldy justice of the peace court—could be considered for closure because they fall below two key tipping points in being courts that sit for three days per week or fewer or that are in a settlement with 20,000 people or fewer that is within 20 miles of another court.
That rationale is difficult to apply to services in rural communities. Is it fair to determine access to justice by uptake? Less populated areas will always lose out against such a criterion. As far as possible, we must make sure that access to justice is delivered locally and in a meaningful way. I accept, for example, that Cupar is not far from any major centre for someone who drives a car, but if they have to rely on public transport, travel to another court could be costly, time-consuming and inconvenient.
The Scottish Government has failed to rule out court closures, stating that they are a matter for the Scottish Court Service, but pressure from budget cuts is driving many local decisions. The Scottish Court Service has received a 20 per cent budget cut as well as a significant cut in capital budgets. The Scottish Government made those decisions and must recognise that budget cuts on such a scale will have consequences. It needs to take responsibility for the proposals that are being made.
In response to a question from me on this issue, the cabinet secretary accepted that a final decision would be made with parliamentary approval. I hope that we get the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals properly—Christine Grahame talked about the Justice Committee’s role—and that the Government will accept responsibility for the final decision.
I look forward to the roll-out of a consultation on the plans. Many local voices in Mid Scotland and Fife are speaking out against the proposals. I have no doubt that many of those people will wish to make the strength of their feeling known to politicians when the opportunity arises.
Mid Scotland and Fife’s network of local courts not only delivers justice in the communities that it serves, but provides crucial support for witnesses to and victims of crime.
I am not familiar with the courts that the member is talking about. Do they have proper facilities for witnesses on either side of a case?
It is important to understand the possible consequences of closures. I am not saying that everything in the current court system is perfect but residents in Cupar are looking at travelling long distances and at other similar pressures and there needs to be a balance. That is why I am hopeful that the Justice Committee will look at the issues. Christine Grahame represents Peebles, which has one of the courts that is on the list for closure, so I am sure that she appreciates that there is another side to the argument.
People in Mid Scotland and Fife deserve to have access to justice where they live. They do not want to have to travel beyond their local area, which would present many families and individuals with difficulty in accessing justice services. I want to ensure that we retain the vital services that the courts in Alloa, Kirkcaldy and Cupar provide and I hope that the Scottish Government will listen to people’s concerns about proposed court closures now and at any time during this parliamentary session.
17:49
I, too, congratulate Iain Gray on highlighting this issue, which is important to many of the local communities that are in the South Scotland region that I represent.
The leaked document outlines options and I understand that the Scottish Court Service has made no decision. It is also important to emphasise that the SCS and its Lord President are, quite properly, independent of the Scottish Government. I have no doubt that their suggested changes will, in their view, be best for the future of the Scottish justice system.
It is true that the judiciary is independent of the Scottish Government, but the cabinet secretary made it clear earlier that this will be a decision for ministers, if and when firm proposals are made.
The cabinet secretary did indeed say that it will be a decision for ministers, and the document makes that clear. The recommendations, however, will be made by the SCS and there will be extensive consultation.
The proposals are influenced not only by the desire to influence the future of Scottish justice, but by the need to save money in the face of unprecedented cuts to Scotland’s budget by the United Kingdom coalition Government. I urge anyone with worries and strong feelings about the proposals to respond to the consultation when the time comes. Nothing is set in stone.
The “Future Court Structures” document makes it clear that the way in which we deliver justice needs to change. Indeed, it is changing and, I am glad to say, improving, partly because the number of cases disposed of in court is falling and partly because crime itself is at a 35-year low, so fewer cases are going to court. We now deliver justice more efficiently—the delays and adjournments that are so frustrating to the system’s users are gradually being reduced.
As Christine Grahame has said, the document makes valid points about the suitability of certain buildings to serve the needs of those who use them. It is of particular concern that some courts do not have space to separate witnesses properly from a defendant’s family. Moreover, as the Justice Committee has heard, many of the buildings are expensive to maintain.
Notwithstanding the need to serve the interests of justice itself, I agree with Iain Gray that we must look at the function of a local court in the context of its role in the wider community. For example, we should consider the distinct identities of our town centres and how they maintain the civic pride of the communities they serve. Often, courts are in former county towns, such as Haddington, Kirkcudbright and Lanark, which in the past were home to many institutions that have long since been centralised in larger urban centres. The maintenance of courts, which are often architecturally significant buildings, adds immensely to a sense of place and continuity.
I disagree with Iain Gray’s suggestion that the Government has ignored the needs of town centres. Only this week, Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, announced a fifth round of conservation area regeneration schemes. The Scottish Government is investing another £10 million in protecting and preserving the historic environment of Scotland, to strengthen the vibrancy and strong sense of identity of our town centres.
The built environment is a hugely important aspect of that, especially buildings that continue to serve the purpose for which they were created. That is why we need to pause and reflect on the social and, indeed, psychological impact that closing a court would have on a town. We would still have the building but, in effect, it would be a museum. We would also lose some of the liveliness and bustle that the court brings, the staff spending money in local businesses and the local newspaper reporter making his living on the press benches.
I join Iain Gray in congratulating the East Lothian Courier on its campaign for Haddington sheriff court, the closure of which—I emphasise that that is only an option in a leaked paper—would end more than 500 years of administration of justice in the county. Locals are rightly proud of that history. Their identity is grounded in both the buildings and the process that takes place in them.
I understand the economic context that requires savings to be found in the justice budget as a result of the £1.3 billion-worth of cuts coming from the coalition to Scotland this year alone.
Could you come to a conclusion please?
Savings must be made—of that I am sure—but our town centres must be allowed to thrive and justice should be as local as possible.
17:54
I congratulate Iain Gray on securing this debate. I am experiencing déjà vu in relation to Annan court. On 5 May 2009, the justice secretary brought the Justice of the Peace (Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway) Order 2009 before the Justice Committee. The order was made under the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 and it proposed to establish justice of the peace courts in nine locations, including Dumfries, and to repeal the provisions of the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 in relation to a number of district courts, including Annan court.
The plan to close Annan district court met widespread opposition from the local press; from Labour, Conservative and Liberal members of the Scottish Parliament and councillors; and from local solicitors and a senior justice of the peace from Annan, who spoke on behalf of the vast majority of JPs in the south-west of Scotland. I am sorry to say that, at that time, no SNP politician was prepared to speak out in favour of the court although, having listened to Joan McAlpine’s speech, I hope that she might be more sympathetic this time round.
My colleague Cathy Jamieson, formerly of this chamber, attended that meeting of the Justice Committee with me to oppose the closure of the Cumnock and Girvan courts, which was included in the statutory instrument. Cathy Jamieson did not speak only as the local member representing Cumnock and Girvan, as she was the Minister for Justice who introduced the bill that became the primary legislation, the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, to the Scottish Parliament in 2006. In speaking of her role at that time, Cathy Jamieson told the Justice Committee:
“The decision to retain lay justice was very much based on ensuring that communities could see justice being done and that crimes and offences that had been committed in communities and which were particularly relevant locally could be dealt with there.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 5 May 2009; c 1754.]
I moved a motion to annul the statutory instrument, which the Justice Committee, in its wisdom, agreed to by five votes to three.
For the record, I ask the member to keep saying that she is talking about the previous Justice Committee and not the present one.
Yes. It was in 2009—I think that I made that clear.
I will not repeat the speech that I made to the committee that morning, but the arguments are as relevant now as they were then. I am therefore disappointed that the proposal to close Annan court has come back again. Like Haddington court, the court in Annan has centuries of history and is now a justice of the peace court. It is disappointing that the proposal is back again.
I will not be the only person who is disappointed by the list that has come out. When I looked back at the Official Report of that meeting of the former Justice Committee, I saw that my colleague Cathie Craigie, the then MSP for Cumbernauld, sought assurances and was given them by Gerard Bonnar of the Scottish Government criminal justice directorate that the Scottish Court Service had no proposals to reconsider the establishment of a JP court in Cumbernauld in the near future. That seems to have gone.
I remain opposed to the closure of Annan JP court and to the centralisation of justice services in a rural area. I understand the pressures that budget cuts place on the Scottish Court Service and I know that there are issues about the accommodation of the Annan justice of the peace court, which is in the town hall. However, the way in which some things are done is capable of being changed.
I believe that the proposals will disadvantage witnesses and victims as well as perpetrators. As Iain Gray said, the proposals will be to the detriment of the important principle of justice being seen to be done. Moreover, I object to the way in which the proposals have been sneaked out through a leaked document. Doubtless, the Scottish Government could get its way, although the fact that Christine Grahame is the convener of the current Justice Committee gives me a bit of encouragement.
Christine Grahame rose—
Sorry, but I am winding up.
The Government has the ability to get its way this time because it has a majority on the Justice Committee. However, the method by which the ideas have been put out is a pretty shabby way of treating the communities that are involved.
I advise members that, because of the number of members who still want to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion from Iain Gray, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Iain Gray.]
Motion agreed to.
17:58
I, too, thank Iain Gray for securing this important debate and giving us the opportunity to raise our concerns about the proposals. I give my apologies for having to leave the chamber slightly early.
The recent news that many courts are under threat of closure is worrying for the future of justice in Scotland. It is particularly threatening for the delivery of justice in rural communities such as those in the Borders for which I have the privilege of being the MSP. The potential impact of such closures would have significant implications for ensuring that victims are treated fairly and that justice is delivered in an efficient manner. The effective operation of the court system in Scotland is essential to ensure a fair judicial process for all those who are involved.
I suggest to Joan McAlpine that the current backlog of more than 14,000 cases surely shows that our justice system cannot accommodate any further reduction in the number of courts.
We have heard that the Scottish Court Service report proposes closing up to 15 of Scotland’s 49 sheriff courts. We should remember that rural residents often travel long distances to attend court already. The court closures would affect travel time for witnesses and victims alike, but the change would disproportionately affect people in rural areas. I believe that further serious consideration of the proposals is necessary.
Another important point is that the Scottish Court Service document has also revealed that the number of sheriff courts hosting jury trials could be reduced from 47 to 14. If fewer than a third of the courts remain in operation, court schedules could be further delayed and there could be little chance of a fair and swift trial. Cases involving jury trials, which often deal with the more serious matters, cannot be taken lightly, and jury trial postponements are already a concern for many under the current system.
In my constituency, Duns and Selkirk are two of the sheriff courts facing the possibility of closure. As they cover a vast geographical area, they consider a large number of cases. The courts in Scotland that remain open could easily face further backlogs, lessening our citizens’ chances of seeing justice quickly and efficiently.
As Christine Grahame said, the Lord President gave evidence to the Justice Committee last November. Lord Hamilton gave a number of examples of how the court structure could be reformed. In particular, he noted that sheriff courts and JP courts could be combined in a single building. He also noted, as we have heard, that maintenance costs are rising in court buildings. However, I would say to the Lord President, and indeed to Christine Grahame and others, that that in itself is not sufficient reason to close nearly a third of the sheriff courts in Scotland, particularly given the disproportionate impact of closures on rural areas, such as mine.
I am not for a moment suggesting that it is sufficient reason, but we must look at the balance between providing local justice and having proper facilities. I am sure that John Lamont does not want money to go into heating ancient buildings instead of providing people with legal aid.
The key principle—I was moving on to this—in our considerations is ensuring that access to justice is made as easy as possible. Iain Gray made that point in his speech. We need to ensure that, wherever residents live in Scotland, they are able to obtain easy access.
The Lord President stated in his submission to the committee that the next step in the process is to get
“judicial members to consider what principles”
ought to be applied in the provision of court services. Fundamental to that is our ability as a nation to deliver justice in rural areas. Transportation links and the means of travel in rural areas must be considered closely before a closure plan can be approved. Given that the burden of the court closures falls on rural communities, the factors that affect those communities must be a key principle to be considered by the Lord President and by the Scottish Government when it finally has to ratify the approvals.
Clearly, the Scottish Court Service must conduct full consultation with local communities before taking any decisions. The opinions of the people using the court system must be considered, to ensure that justice is delivered quickly for those accused of crimes, for the victims of crime and for other people using the system. The rural communities of Scotland, such as those covered by the Selkirk and Duns courts, are very concerned about the possibility of closures. It is just as important to provide an efficient and accessible justice system to such communities as it is to people living in Glasgow or Edinburgh.
Mr Lamont, you will have to finish.
In conclusion, I again congratulate lain Gray on securing the debate, and I hope that the Scottish Government will reflect on the important points that have been made in Parliament today.
I call Jenny Marra, to be followed by John Finnie. We are very tight for time.
18:04
I thank my colleague Iain Gray for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I would like to make a brief representation of some of the problems that constituents have highlighted to me in the wake of the proposal for court closures in North East Scotland.
First, there is the impact on the victims of crime. A longer journey to the court, for example from Forfar, where the sheriff court is under threat, to Dundee, presents problems for the victims. The risk is that the victim will end up on the same bus as the accused, causing them extreme upset and distress, and potentially affecting the quality of their evidence. The concern is not to be taken lightly, because reduced frequencies of bus services will result in that happening. It is a reality. The court hearing is a particularly anxious time for victims of crime, and the last thing that a victim wants is to be on the same bus as the accused when they travel to court. Victim Support in Dundee knows that that will happen. It already occurs, sometimes, as people travel to the High Court. Victims have many different methods of getting to the court if it is in their community, including walking, a shorter and more affordable taxi journey, or more frequent short-distance buses. As the victims of crime must be the focus of any changes to our court system, I ask the minister to take Victim Support’s testimony seriously in her deliberations.
Secondly, I ask the Government to scrutinise carefully the data that is available to it on jury trials that are held in a different sheriffdom from the locus of the crime. Anecdotal evidence that is available to me shows that trials for crimes committed in Dundee that are heard by juries in Perth are failing every time to secure prosecutions. It might be because the juries were not persuaded of the guilt of the accused—I say to the minister that this is a serious point—but there is also a logical possibility that juries in Perth are not so concerned about summary crimes that take place in Dundee, outwith their own community.
The member brings into doubt the entire High Court circuit, as cases are frequently held outwith the immediate area in which the crime took place.
John Finnie raises an important point. There are reasons for the High Court being held in different places, but in the sheriffdoms, with more summary cases, people are telling me that they are failing every time to secure prosecutions. I just want the minister to look carefully at the evidence that is available to her. Communities are perhaps not taking as seriously the crimes that are committed in different sheriffdoms. That is a serious point and it is worth considering. I urge the minister to ask her officials for data on jury trials that have been held outwith the sheriffdom and to draw appropriate conclusions.
Those are two issues that affect Dundee and the north-east at this early stage of the proposals. I urge the minister to take those representations seriously before she decides to close any courts.
18:07
I congratulate Iain Gray on securing this evening’s debate.
There has been a reduced settlement, which is not of the Scottish Government’s making, and it would seem peculiar if the Scottish Court Service was not subject to some of the implications of that. Forward planning is important.
I hear what Iain Gray says about the sustaining of communities and the historic connections, and it is important that justice is administered as locally as possible. Mr Gray used the term “next door” a couple of times, and the word “local” has been used many times. Many of my constituents would be bemused by the phrase “next door”. For instance, due to the historic connections that a number of members have mentioned, someone in Durness in north-west Sutherland would travel to the sheriff court in Dornoch. Much of the 79-mile journey is on single-track roads and it will take two hours and 32 minutes. If they go to Wick, the journey will be 90 miles and it will take three hours, or 20 per cent longer. I have to say that they would be bemused by the suggestion of a bus journey.
The member makes a fair point. My reference to “next door” was a literary and rhetorical allusion, but the point is a good one. In East Lothian, Haddington might be 20 miles from Edinburgh, but Dunbar is twice that distance, so people would be required to travel an even greater distance.
Point taken. This is not a geography test although, having said that, I am about to give another example. John Lamont alluded to the significant deficiency of public transport in these areas, and Jenny Marra alluded to the separation of witnesses. That is important. It has always been challenging in relation to cases from Barra, where the witnesses and the accused will travel to Lochmaddy sheriff court on the same boat.
We need some realism. This is an important debate, but it is not about altering structures, many of which have existed for a long time. Victims and Victim Support are right to highlight some of the concerns that they have expressed. However, they have highlighted to me long-standing concerns about, for example, court structures that see vulnerable witnesses—albeit that they are escorted, due to the support that is now in place—going upstairs to the court with a queue standing at the top of the stairs. Some of the buildings are simply not suitable. There are opportunities for shared facilities and for videoconferencing, which is much used in rural areas.
The motion is about access to justice. The reality is that no one wants to go to court. Access to justice in its broadest sense has been brought about by the reduced likelihood of the requirement to go to court, as a result of the 35-year low in the crime rate. The use of fixed-penalty notices, which has been alluded to, has also reduced the likelihood of people going to court.
A number of options relate to opening hours and the frequency of court sittings, which can relate to workloads and locations. Members have referred to the district court set-up. Mr Gray will know some of the implications of that in the Highlands.
The court estate is old and is not fit for purpose. It was me who questioned the Lord President of the Court of Session. I gave the example of busloads of witnesses travelling from the Highlands and Islands to the central belt for lengthy sittings of the High Court as against a few carloads of advocates—I say that with all respect to my colleague Roderick Campbell—travelling north, which has implications for the carbon footprint. In a letter, the Lord President said:
“I can confirm that the impact on carbon emissions for the court estate and for those attending court will be considered as part of the process in determining future court locations”.
The choice might be between poor local facilities and travelling some distance to better facilities. It is a question of quality versus quantity. What is important is having an informed consultation process and Parliament’s approval for anything that is decided.
18:11
Justice seen is justice done. As Iain Gray and, indeed, Charles Dickens have recognised, it is seen best when it is done locally. The wholesale closure of local courts would be bad news for people who are affected by crime. As has been said, some victims and witnesses already face considerable journeys to have their voices heard, but that is no argument for saying that making that happen to others would be an improvement.
Often, witnesses and victims already face considerable difficulties. Fewer than half the respondents to the Scottish crime and justice survey in 2010-11 felt confident that the system provided good services for witnesses, and fewer still were confident that the services for victims were of a good standard. Simply closing court buildings does not, although one or two members have implied that it does, solve those problems.
Answers are particularly needed about travel provisions for vulnerable witnesses and for those for whom travel can be challenging. Evidence can be given by video or television link. Currently, that happens between one court building and another. If some court buildings cease to operate, the facilities in them will cease to be available. It would be socially unjust if access to justice were denied to those in our communities who are unable to travel or find that difficult.
Does the member accept that the opportunity exists for more shared services, which are what the public sector should be about? Evidence need not be given from some building that was historically a court building.
I agree with the principle of shared services; we also need to maintain and recognise the principle of local access to justice. We must recognise that, for some of the reasons that a number of members have given, separating people who are attending a court from others who are doing other duties or business is often necessary and good.
The effects of crime are felt more widely than simply by the victim; the communities in which the victims live feel the effects, too. That is another argument for why communities should in principle be at the heart of our justice system.
Like the court in Haddington, the court in Stonehaven, in my area, appears to be at risk because it is not far enough away from the nearest major city. My constituents in Stonehaven know that having access to local justice is in itself a good thing—it is part of what they expect from living in that town. That is why they opposed closure when it was mooted not so long ago and why I am certain that they will oppose it again. They value the sense of local justice that would be lost if the local court closed. My constituents in Aberdeen also know that the closure of Stonehaven’s court would simply add to the courtroom congestion and the delays that they experience in Aberdeen’s major busy city court, in the same way as Haddington’s court and Edinburgh’s court relate to each other.
Courts are important to the people who work in them. I would be interested to hear how the minister will address the number of people who might lose their jobs as a consequence of court closures and to hear what adjustments will be made for the people who work in courts.
The issue of justices of the peace was raised by Iain Gray. JPs have to sit at least 12 times a year in order to continue to sit as justices. They do that on a voluntary basis. The issue of how many of those justices will be able to continue to do that if their local court closes must be borne in mind.
There are wider implications that need to be addressed. The report suggests a course of action that I believe is bad for victims, witnesses and communities. I hope that ministers will tell us today that they will think carefully before acting on any of the closure proposals that might come forward.
18:15
I congratulate Iain Gray on securing the debate.
Obviously, proposals for major changes to court structures merit full and robust consultation. Consideration of changes must include access-to-justice issues, which should be at the forefront of everyone’s minds. That is precisely what will happen.
Of course, since 2010, the Scottish Court Service has been an independent body under the leadership of the Lord President. It is currently considering a range of proposals centred around the efficient use of its estate. Some of the ideas are operational matters for the Lord President, but proposals by the Court Service to close courts will need the approval of ministers—as Iain Gray correctly identified and in relation to which Claire Baker requested reassurance—and will come before the Parliament.
I am one of the many members who have rural constituencies and I understand the challenges that rural communities face, as well as the challenge that is faced when any local institution appears on a list of options for closure. I understand perfectly what is happening here. However, as indicated by my colleague John Finnie, people in many communities in Scotland—including people in my constituency—travel far greater distances than were alluded to by Iain Gray.
We have received assurances, as has Iain Gray, about the work that will be done by the Scottish Court Service in relation to future court structures. It intends to discuss relevant issues with staff. That is one of the issues that Lewis Macdonald rightly identifies. It will also have discussions with the judiciary and other justice bodies and will hold dialogue events—that is what it calls them; I think that we would call them consultations—with the legal profession, local authorities and groups representing the needs of users, such as Victim Support Scotland and Consumer Focus Scotland. It is doing so in order to ensure that any proposals are informed by a wide range of perspectives.
This is not a secret process. I expect that members will wish to contribute to it as much as possible in relation to their local areas. On 1 November, the Lord President confirmed to the Justice Committee that consideration was being given to the issue of future court structures. The Court Service wrote to inform stakeholders about that work in September and again in December 2011, making it clear that further dialogue was planned during 2012. There is therefore nothing particularly secret going on.
It may be the case that, for the stakeholders and practitioners in the courts, this was not a secret process but, as far as the public are concerned, the Scottish Court Service document was a confidential document that came to the notice of the public only through its being leaked to a newspaper. In that sense, it has not been an open and transparent process.
As I understand it—I was not there; I was not involved in the meeting—the Justice Committee took evidence from the Lord President on 1 November about some of the issues that are being discussed.
If the minister will take an intervention, I think that I can assist.
The Justice Committee took evidence from the Lord President on 1 November, and he announced that he would start a consultation process in January 2012. We knew all about it. We could not get it on to the front page of the newspaper, but it certainly was not a big secret. There are members of Mr Gray’s party on the committee.
As ever, when the options list appears, the communities that see a local institution on that list are those that immediately become exercised. That is understandable and I accept that.
Any specific proposals for court closures that emerge from the discussions will be the subject of wider public consultation that involves local communities. As I have already said, I would expect local members to be very much involved in that consultation. That local consultation is a statutory requirement before any proposals are brought before the Parliament for approval. No decisions to close courts have been made and no courts can be closed without consultation and an order in the Parliament. I hope that that is of some comfort to members.
Will the minister give way?
I need to press on, as my time is rather restricted. If I think that I am making some progress, I will let the member back in.
As may have been expected, many members have passionately made the case for courts in their own constituencies. That is understandable—I would do exactly the same if I were in their position—but there is a wider context that we need to look at. There is no point in simply sweeping aside the issue of the funding cuts that the Scottish Government has to deal with. Indeed, in its report on the budget, the Justice Committee accepted that the rationalisation of court premises could make significant savings, although it was recognised that, at times, that may involve making difficult choices. In November, the Lord President said:
“We face a number of challenges, including the fact that we are only part of the justice system. Other bodies such as the police, the Procurator Fiscal Service and the community service organisations all have their respective parts to play. On our own, we cannot secure the best and most efficient arrangement for the processing of court cases.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 November 2011; c 389.]
Everybody must understand that more money being spent in one area means less money being spent in other areas.
We can secure access to justice only by working right across the system, and the Government is trying to do that through the making justice work programme. We have had a number of reviews. Sheriff Principal Bowen’s sheriff and jury review and Lord Gill’s civil courts review set out the basis for a fundamental change in the way that business is conducted. They emphasised greater specialisation and a move away from a model in which all types of business are conducted at all court locations. In the previous session of Parliament, members from all parties welcomed the findings of those reviews, but there are implications. Perhaps we now have to think about what those implications might be.
We cannot deliver better access to justice by avoiding the need for change. It has already been mentioned that the towns that we live in, the places in which we work, the way that we do business, the availability of transport and the way that we travel have all changed radically since the times in which the court buildings were built. Justice should be about not only the physical building of a court, but delivery in a range of ways that are best suited to users of the system.
There are many issues. We can use new technology to cut back the numbers of people who require to travel to pay fines. The use of videolinks could be extended. Mr Gray raised the concern that victims and witnesses may find it harder to travel if court locations are closed, but the issue is not always straightforward. In some areas, it will be easier to travel to a major centre than to another small town. Indeed, I understand that in Mr Gray’s constituency, residents of Prestonpans have far better transport links to Edinburgh than to Haddington. It is not always a simple question of mileage. It is about access.
Members have already mentioned the difficulty of segregating or the failure to segregate victims from the accused, or witnesses on opposite sides of major civil actions. It is important that we take that on board.
In conclusion, I have noted the Scottish Court Service’s paper on future court structures and agree that any proposals for major changes to the court structure merit full and robust consultation. However, the Court Service is right to examine options, and we should broaden our understanding of what access to justice means and think creatively about how the system should best serve the needs of users in the 21st century, not the 17th, 18th or 19th centuries, when the buildings in question were created.
Meeting closed at 18:24.