§ Mr. GallieTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what objectives for reducing court waiting periods have been established; what targets have been set for 1995–96 1131W in respect of court waiting periods for the Supreme and Sheriff courts; and if he will make a statement about the performance of the Supreme courts and each of the Sheriff courts in 1994–95. [36162]
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonThe programming of court business is a matter for the judiciary. Acting in co-operation with the judiciary in the Supreme and sheriff courts, the Government seek to provide the resources which will allow speedy access to justice. Having regard to the time required by parties to have their cases properly prepared the following objectives have been adopted
the Lord President of the Court of Session has accepted the recommendations of a committee chaired by Lord Maxwell relating to the reduction of waiting periods in the Supreme courts: the target is to reduce waiting periods to the recommended levels and, subject to any acceleration in the rate of increase in court work, maintain waiting periods at that level: for certain categories of hearing, additional targets involving much reduced waiting periods, have been set;Sheriffs principal have agreed to overall targets of reducing waiting periods for summary criminal trials in the Sheriff courts to 12 weeks or less and to hold them at that level; and to maintain waiting periods at 12 weeks or less for civil cases in the Sheriff courts.Targets for the Scottish Court Service for 1995–96 are set out in the reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) on 31 March 1995, Official Report, columns 803–84. Performance against those targets will be published in the annual report of the Scottish Courts Service which was established as an executive agency from 3 April 1995.
The main targets for waiting periods for 1994–95 are set down in the table—"waiting period" is the period between a trial or proof being requested or an appeal being received and the date assigned expressed in weeks—and national performance for that year is noted in the second column in the table:
1994–95 Target Performance Criminal Appeal Business Summary prosecutions: Notes of Appeal against Sentence and Stated cases (accused in custody) 4 3 Court of Session (a) Ordinary proofs 20 21 (b) Defended Consistorial proofs 17 17 Sheriff Courts (a) civil proofs/debates 12 13.0 (National average) as at March 1995 (b) Summary Criminal Trials 12 16.1 In 1994–95 waiting periods of 12 weeks or less were achieved for civil debates-proofs in 88 per cent. of sheriff courts.
Waiting periods of 12 weeks or less were achieved for summary criminal business in 76 per cent. of sheriff courts.
Performance of individual sheriff courts at 31 March 1995 is set out in the table:
1132W
Performance of individual Sheriff courts as at 31 March 1995 Court Civil proofs Summary criminal trials Aberdeen 19 13 Glasgow 17 24 Kirkcudbright 15 12 Dundee 13 15 Campbeltown 12 8 Dumbarton 12 11 Dumfries 12 12 Inverness 12 12 Kirkcaldy 12 10 Lanark 12 12 Linlithgow 12 22 Paisley 12 12 Portree 12 8 Dingwall 11 11 Elgin 11 11 Falkirk 11 12 Hamilton 11 17 Alloa 10 11 Ayr 10 11 Dunoon 10 11 Greenock 10 12 Jedburgh 10 10 Kilmarnock 10 10 Peterhead 10 11 Stirling 10 12 Wick 10 12 Arbroath 9 12 Banff 9 8 Cupar 9 9 Duns 9 9 Edinburgh 9 11 Kirkwall 9 9 Oban 9 11 Peebles 9 10 Selkirk 9 10 Stonehaven 9 11 Stranraer 9 10 Dornoch 8 10 Dunfermline 8 13 Fort William 8 18 Lerwick 8 8 Lochmaddy 8 8 Rothesay 8 10 Stornoway 8 10 Tain 8 9 Haddington 7 12 Perth 7 14 Airdrie 6 17 Forfar 6 6 In addition, the sheriffs principal have agreed that sheriff court programmes should be designed to ensure that the number of trials adjourned due to lack of court time should not exceed 5 per cent. of the total number set down, a target met in 73 per cent. of sheriff courts.