Hansard

We have brought this debate to the chamber today to allow all members to have a say in the closures and cuts in function of Scotland’s courts—closures and cuts that were fully and formally supported by Kenny MacAskill on behalf of the Scottish Government last Friday morning.

The proposals will, of course, be subject to scrutiny by the Justice Committee, but that procedure will allow MSPs to express a collective view only if the committee votes to reject the statutory instruments in question. Today, members have the opportunity to stand up and be counted, and to tell ministers what they think of Mr MacAskill’s cuts and closures plan, whether or not they have a vote on the Justice Committee.

The Scottish Government has made no secret of the fact that the plans are about reducing the budget of Scotland’s courts, regardless of the delays and inefficiencies from which many of them already suffer. Two weeks ago, the chief executive of the Scottish Court Service said:

“By 2015 the court service running cost budget will reduce by 20% in real terms and the capital budget will reduce from £20m to £4m.”

The secretary of the Scottish courts branch of the Public and Commercial Services Union, Brian Carroll, made the same point. He said:

“these proposals are about fitting the delivery of justice into a reduced budget and nothing to do with modernisation or with the proposed justice reforms that are under consultation presently.”

Kenny MacAskill has not denied that money is at the root of the proposals, but his amendment seeks—predictably, I suppose—to place all the blame for the cuts on Westminster. He is, of course, the same Cabinet Secretary for Justice who failed last year to avoid the single Scottish police and fire services becoming liable to pay VAT, at a cost to those services of well over £20 million a year. The police and fire services cannot afford those cuts, as hundreds of police staff who fear for their future can testify. For Kenny MacAskill to say that he can afford to take a £24 million hit to the police but cannot avoid cuts of £1 million a year to Scotland’s courts simply lacks credibility. They are his cuts and closures, and to pretend that somebody else is responsible for his decisions is an insult to all those who stand to lose access to local justice.

If members are unsure about the cabinet secretary’s personal responsibility for the decisions, they have only to consider the timetable. Reports of possible closures first emerged in December 2011. The Scottish Court Service invited service users to take part in dialogue events in May 2012. The consultation on proposed closures was launched last September, and conclusions and final recommendations were published on Tuesday 9 April, which was barely two weeks ago. In other words, the Scottish Court Service took well over a year from first consideration to get to final conclusions. It no doubt recognised the seriousness of what was proposed. That is not so for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. He did not need to think too much about the cuts and closures over which the Scottish Court Service had taken so much time because, in truth, they are his cuts, not the Scottish Court Service’s cuts.

Let us consider just one issue: the impact of the closure proposals on the local economies of the towns in question. That issue was raised by, for example, Andy Willox of the Federation of Small Businesses. The FSB very fairly acknowledged that wider economic impact was not a primary responsibility of the Scottish Court Service but rather a primary responsibility of the Scottish Government. It noted that Nicola Sturgeon had launched the town centre review on behalf of the Scottish Government by saying:

“We want to take every measure possible to ensure our high streets are vibrant places where local people want to spend their time and money.”

Indeed, many Scottish National Party members have signed up to oppose the closure of Crown post offices in today’s members’ business debate for that very reason. Many have also signed up to oppose the closure of their local courts.

Last week, I asked Kenny MacAskill whether he would

“take into account ... the impact of court closures ... on the local economy of county towns”

before he reached any final decisions. He said:

“Yes. Those are matters that I will discuss with Cabinet colleagues.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2013; c 18535.]

That was on Tuesday last week. He announced his decision on Friday. That must have been some discussion. Perhaps Kenny MacAskill will tell us whether he has formally met the Deputy First Minister and other Cabinet colleagues since he made that commitment in Parliament last Tuesday afternoon. Perhaps he will tell us what consideration of the wider policy context there was between Tuesday and Friday last week, as urged by the FSB. On Friday, the FSB said:

“Anyone with an interest in the economic wellbeing of Scotland’s towns will question the Justice Secretary’s decision”.

It said that that decision should be revisited.