HC Deb 18 July 1995 vol 263 cc1130-2W
Mr. Gallie

To 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 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-Hamilton

The 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 adoptedthe 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:

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.