|
It is unfortunate that we have to revisit 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 another source 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.
When I was in practice, 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.
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 "the fabric of the Court building in Peebles was deliberately neglected in a period of years running up to the review."
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.
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?
|
