Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- Decisions on Taking Business in Private
- Subordinate Legislation
- Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Subordinate Legislation
Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2016 [Draft]
Under agenda item 2, the committee will further consider the draft Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2016, which is an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument.
I welcome the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Annabelle Ewing, who will speak to the SSI. With the minister are Linda Pollock, who is deputy director of the community justice division of the Scottish Government; Quentin Fisher, who is also from the community justice division; and Craig McGuffie, who is from the Scottish Government’s directorate for legal services. I welcome them, too.
I thank the minister and her officials for providing the statistics that the committee requested last week and remind members that officials are permitted to give evidence under agenda item 2, but they may not participate in the formal debate on the order under agenda item 3.
I refer members to paper 1.
Does the minister want to make an opening statement?
Good morning. In the circumstances, I simply refer to the opening statement that I made last week.
Okay. Do members have any questions? We have additional information and time to look at the SSI.
I, too, thank the minister for providing additional information.
I recognise that a relatively small number of people are affected, but I still have concerns that the broader principle sends out the wrong signal to both offenders and the wider public. At a time when we are looking to enhance community sentencing, there is a danger that breaching such sentences is not seen to have consequences, and that undermines the process. Can you give any further reassurance on that, minister?
On the wider policy objectives, as I mentioned last week we are looking to remove exclusions from the possible granting of a home detention curfew—that granting is by no means automatic—to certain categories. We discussed that in detail last week. I refer to those who have, in effect, committed a new offence while out of prison and before the end of their sentence and those who have breached licence conditions, including HDC conditions, while out of prison.
We can see the potential scope from the figures that have been provided to the committee. The figures have been updated to 21 November 2016 to help the committee’s deliberations. We can see that the numbers involved are not substantial. It must also be pointed out that the possible individuals who could be brought within scope would be eligible for consideration, but that does not mean that they would be granted an HDC. It is important to put that on the record.
On the wider objectives, we seek to encourage rehabilitation, reintegration into communities, the building of family relationships again, and reintegration by facilitating individuals’ productive contributions to society while they are on an HDC with the ultimate objective, of course, of reducing reoffending. That is the key principle to note. I am sure that we all wish to see a reduction in reoffending.
Finally—I stressed this point quite considerably last week—the risk assessment that is carried out is robust and puts public safety at its very heart to ensure that, if HDC is granted, the decision takes into account public safety as a primary consideration, looking at such issues as possible reoffending and the likelihood of reintegration into society.
I wonder whether the Scottish Prison Service, in making those decisions, might face pressure to go ahead and release people back into the community to help manage the prison population, rather than looking as rigorously as the minister suggests at the needs of the offender and the concerns that communities might have.
I do not accept that. With regard to longer-term prisoners, the assessments are carried out not simply by the SPS but by the Parole Board for Scotland. Would officials like to comment further on that suggestion that the SPS would factor in prisoner number management in its risk assessment?
As the minister said, for longer-term prison sentences, the Parole Board would agree the halfway point. It is also worth noting that criminal justice social work do part of the risk assessment in the community. The SPS takes its job very seriously and does risk assessments very thoroughly; the prison population is not a factor that would come into that, but the risk profile of the offender—whether there is a risk to the public and a risk of reoffending—is a factor. Criminal justice social work looks at the risk of the person returning to the community, in particular the house and the home that they would be returning to. The risk assessment that is undertaken is very thorough.
Finally, I ask again about ministerial oversight. Mr McGuffie provided answers to the committee last week, but I am concerned at the suggestion that Scottish ministers would have a role and might be involved at an administrative level. Can the position be further clarified this week?
The point that was made was that the Scottish Prison Service acts as the executive agency, with delegated authority. A framework agreement is in place between the Scottish Government and the SPS, which is on the SPS website; it gives a broadbrush explanation of how the direction of policy is to be implemented. With any authority that is delegated, control can ultimately be taken back; as a matter of practice, that is not the case. Again, I ask officials to clarify further details.
What the minister says is correct. Delegated authority is given to the chief executive of the SPS; that is published in the framework agreement, which members can find online. It states all the areas in which the SPS has delegated authority. In instances such as those that we are discussing, as we have just gone through, the SPS people look at the risk assessment; they work with the offenders daily, and it is right and proper that they make the recommendation and the decision.
Do you envisage any scenario in which the cabinet secretary or a minister would be involved in an individual decision?
The power has been delegated to the chief executive of the Prison Service. The chief executive is accountable to ministers, who are accountable to the Parliament, but the day-to-day management and operation of the prisons is done through the Prison Service.
To be absolutely clear for the record, the position that was set out last week—that ministers would be involved at an administrative level—is incorrect.
This is just restating what was said last week.
Okay.
I thank the minister for bringing the statistics to the committee. I was heartened to see that only 6 per cent of recalls from HDCs are due to reoffending. Does the minister agree that that proves the validity of the system, and that the system works?
Yes. The latest reoffending statistics for this year thus far show that we are at a 17-year low in reoffending; that indeed shows that policies concerning, inter alia, HDC make a difference and facilitate rehabilitation and reduced reoffending. I am sure that we all wish to see a reduction in reoffending; electronic monitoring in the form of HDC allows us to do that.
I must say that I have some reservations, minister. Six per cent is a percentage but we are talking about individuals who have committed crime and are out on licence, who have a home detention curfew and have breached licence conditions but who are seen to be again given another chance. Where does it leave victims and all the people who have seen the original sentence being imposed only for automatic early release to kick in when, despite the condition being breached, or even another crime being committed, the offender is still at liberty?
My position is that the original statutory exemptions were there for good purpose. They provide a very strong deterrent and reinforce the seriousness of breaching the conditions. If we had wanted to look at this—and we want to encourage community disposals where they are appropriate—that should have happened as part of a wider debate on community justice. For that reason, I am not too happy about the proposal.
Does anyone else have any comments?
Minister, I note from memory that reoffending by released prisoners, which I believe is calculated as another offence being committed within two years of a prisoner’s release, is of the order of about half or thereabouts. Do you have that figure to hand? In that context, a figure of 6 per cent—albeit that it covers a different timeframe than the two years—stands very good comparison with the population released from prison as a whole. Furthermore, I think that the reoffending rates for those who receive community sentences are also substantially ahead, so one could almost argue that if only every other way in which we dispose of prisoners were as successful as this one, we would be very happy indeed. Is that correct?
I agree that the stats on HDC show that there is a relatively low level of reoffending. That is to be welcomed and it is indicative of the fact that HDC is an important tool that is open to community justice partners to facilitate reintegration into the community and—I return to this point—reduce reoffending.
I will pick up on an issue that the convener raised. I think that I made this point at last week’s meeting. The working group included Scottish Women’s Aid, which was an active participant in the deliberations and signed up to the final report, which included inter alia the recommendation that those hitherto excluded categories of individuals should now be included in the possible grant of HDC. I state again that HDC is by no means automatic; it is subject to a robust risk assessment on the grounds that I have explained.
John Finnie has a question.
The point has been covered.
Supplementary to what the minister has said, a concern was raised about the scope and breadth of the examination of the issue. My understanding is that the working group comprised the Scottish Prison Service, the police, independent researchers, social work practitioners and a representative of Scottish Women’s Aid. It encompassed 16 months of work and international evidence was also looked at. To me, that seems like a robust and extremely thorough examination of the issue prior to the working group making a proposal.
I think that I made the point last week that there had been substantial engagement. The final report was informed not only by the statistics that were made available to the working group, but by international evidence, other academic research, the engagement that Ben Macpherson spoke about—at both national and local level—and the expertise and knowledge that the individuals concerned brought to their 16-month deliberation.
For the sake of completeness, in addition to the members that Ben Macpherson mentioned, in the working group’s lifetime its membership included a representative from the Judicial Institute for Scotland, the head of the parole unit, and representatives from the violence reduction unit and the national offender management unit. Also included were the Police Scotland specialist crime division and the centre for youth and criminal justice. There was, therefore, available to the working group a panel of experts in their field and front-line practitioners. That illustrates Ben Macpherson’s point that this was an extensive look at the issue.
10:15
I want to follow up Stewart Stevenson’s comments. I suspect that what we are doing here is managing risk and 6 per cent does not necessarily seem to be the threshold of success. I am sure that everybody who is involved would look to bring that figure down if they could. Nevertheless, if we were to demand a figure approximating 0 per cent, we would be asking for a guarantee that would be unrealistic in most of the other endeavours that we embark on.
I suppose that, as a Government, you will be looking at how the proposal operates in practice and if the 6 per cent figure were to be nudged upwards with a change in the process over time, I presume that you would look at why that was happening and potentially make alterations accordingly. Is that a fair assessment?
I think so, yes. The member makes a fair point. We cannot guarantee 0 per cent even though we would like to. In every human endeavour, it is always difficult to guarantee a 100 per cent success rate. However, the figures show that the risk is being managed well in relative terms.
Officials look at the statistics regularly. Last week, Mr Finnie raised an important point that was also raised by the working group. How can we better support individuals who are in those circumstances to facilitate compliance? There will be a demonstration pilot project on the current plans for that very issue early next year. That is an important element of how we are seeking to improve the rates further as the member would like.
As an ex criminal justice social worker, it would be remiss of me not to challenge some of the perceptions about HDC being an easy option for offenders. It is a robust system and a crucial part of the process of moving offenders from prison back into the community, as the minister has said.
Members might like to know that research clearly indicates that, when prisoners come straight out of prison into the community, reoffending rates are much higher. That is a comment for the record, convener.
There are no further comments or questions for the minister. Minister, do you want to make a closing statement?
No, thank you.
In that case, we move to the next item, which is formal consideration of motion S5M-02127.
Motion moved,
That the Justice Committee recommends that the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2016 [draft] be approved.—[Annabelle Ewing].
Do any members wish to speak?
I remind members that the 1991 white paper on criminal justice that the Tories introduced contained the memorable quote that prison is
“an expensive way to make bad people worse.”
We should support anything that gets people out of prison and keeps them out.
Thank you for that contribution. By way of riposte, I repeat that, given the report that we have seen, it is regrettable that the proposal, which has been brought to Parliament under the affirmative procedure, has not been the subject of a parliamentary debate on the wider issue of community justice.
I am conscious that there has been no attempt to curtail any debate. We have heard a range of views here, so it is not the case that there has been no debate. The Scottish Green Party strongly welcomes the proposal; as the minister says, it is an option and it is about reintegration.
I would be concerned if unintended offence were to be taken by the wide range of participants who are behind the report. I suspect that a small minority of people might see the proposal as controversial. However, when an organisation such as Scottish Women’s Aid, which has victims’ interests at the forefront of all its deliberations, shares a collective view on the proposal with front-line practitioners, for me that makes a compelling case, and I will certainly lend my support to the proposal.
I invite the minister to wind up.
I agree entirely with Mr Finnie’s comments. It is important to put on the record that individuals from various spheres have put an awful lot of their time into this; that includes those from important victims organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid, and I think that their opinions should be listened to.
Thank you, minister. The question is, that motion S5M-02127, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Evans, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Against
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to,
That the Justice Committee recommends that the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2016 [draft] be approved.
As there was a division on the motion, are members content for me, as convener, to clear our final report, or would they prefer to see the report before it is cleared?
We are content with your proposal, convener.
Thank you.
I suspend the meeting for a change of witnesses.
10:21 Meeting suspended.10:22 On resuming—
Air Weapons Licensing (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [Draft]
The next item on the agenda is consideration of a draft affirmative Scottish statutory instrument: the Air Weapons Licensing (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2016. I welcome again the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Annabelle Ewing, who is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Keith Main, safer communities division; and Carla McCloy-Stevens, director of legal services.
I refer members to paper 2, which is a note from the clerk. Minister, do you want to make an opening statement?
Yes, thank you. The new licensing regime for air weapons in Scotland is set out in part 1 of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015, and implementation of the act is well under way. From 31 December this year, it will be an offence for anyone to have or use an air weapon without an air weapon certificate or permit, unless they are otherwise exempt. Schedule 1 to the 2015 act sets out various exemptions, which reflect similar exemptions in the licensing regime for more powerful firearms and shotguns. That ensures consistency between the two licensing regimes, which is helpful to the police, who are the licensing authority, and to the shooting community.
The purpose of the draft regulations that are before the committee today is to add two further exemptions to schedule 1 to the 2015 act. The additions are being made at the request of the Ministry of Defence and replicate exemptions from the firearms licensing regime under sections 16A and 16B of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The first exemption covers the possession and use of air weapons by civilians while on service premises and under the supervision of military personnel. The exemption would allow a person to shoot air weapons without holding an air weapons certificate at a properly supervised shooting gallery that is set up as part of an open day, for example, or at a family or community event on service premises. It might interest the committee to know that open days and other events take place at barracks and other military bases throughout the year. Such events are generally focused on recruitment, but they can also be aimed at military families or the wider community, helping to maintain important links with the local area.
The second exemption covers the possession and use of air weapons on Ministry of Defence Police premises by people who are undergoing firearms training and assessment under the supervision of Ministry of Defence Police personnel. Both the exemptions relate to Ministry of Defence matters that are considered to be reserved. The Scottish Government believes that it is appropriate to add the exemptions.
It should be noted that schedule 1 explicitly exempts other reserved matters from the regulation of part 1 of the 2015 act, including the possession and use of air weapons by members of Her Majesty’s armed forces and the Ministry of Defence Police in the course of their duties. The regulations that are before the committee today will help to make clear who is and who is not subject to the new air weapons licensing regime. They reflect equivalent exemptions from the wider firearms licensing regime and are consistent with the other air weapons licensing exemptions that are set out in schedule 1 to the 2015 act.
Finally, given that shooting in such circumstances may be undertaken only under the strict supervision of military personnel, it is not considered that the inclusion of these exemptions should involve any adverse impact on public safety.
Thank you, minister. Do members have any questions?
I will make an obvious comment. In my constituency, members of the Ministry of Defence Police guard the St Fergus gas terminal, which is part of the critical national infrastructure. I think that it is appropriate for those police to have the powers that will be conferred by this piece of subordinate legislation, if it is passed by Parliament.
I note the reservations that were expressed by my colleagues and me about the original legislation. However, I think that the exemptions that are being put forward by this statutory instrument are sensible and are ones that we would support.
Noted. As there are no further questions, we move to item 5, which is the formal debate. I ask the minister to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Justice Committee recommends that the Air Weapons Licensing (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [draft] be approved.—[Annabelle Ewing]
Motion agreed to.
Does the committee agree to delegate authority to me to approve the final report?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the minister and her officials for their attendance.
10:27 Meeting suspended.
10:27 On resuming—
Justices of the Peace (Training and Appraisal) (Scotland) Order 2016 (SSI 2016/329)
Item 6 is consideration of five negative SSIs. Do members have any comments on SSI 2016/329? If not, do we agree to make no recommendation on it?
Members indicated agreement.
Once I have gone through the list, we will see whether we have no recommendations to make on any of the instruments, or whether there are any issues with any of them. I will take them one at a time—I think that that is the easiest way to do it.
Court Fees (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Order 2016 (SSI 2016/332)
Members will be aware that the Law Society of Scotland has made a submission about this instrument. Do members have any questions or comments?
As you note, the Law Society has been in touch with us about this instrument, which is similar to one that we considered last week and raises many of the same concerns about the impact on access to justice. In its papers, the Government confirms that the consultation that it ran on the matter showed an overwhelming resistance to the increasing court fees. I know that we are operating to a reasonably tight deadline because, I think, the instrument comes into effect on 28 November.
The Law Society raises some interesting points, including about whether increases in eligibility thresholds will bear comparison with inflation over time. I think that, in its submission, it says that if it were forced to offer an opinion between option 1, which is a flat-rate increase, and option 2, which is a targeted increase, it would prefer option 2. That is hardly surprising, but if there is any time available to find out how the Government proposes to amend the fees and eligibility criteria thresholds over time in line with inflation, that would be helpful.
10:30
On that specific point, my understanding is that the committee has until 5 December to report to Parliament on all these instruments. As a result, the committee could consider the instrument again at next week’s meeting if, as Liam McArthur suggests, we want to get further evidence on these points.
As I said in relation to the SSI the last time round, I can understand the resistance to an increase in fees at any stage, and it might simply be that any increases that we are talking about will be modest. However, the concerns that have been raised about the impact of the order on access to justice seem to be more serious, and if there were time available to satisfy ourselves that we would be approving something that was as targeted as it could be against the backdrop of the Government’s stated intention to try to recover court costs more effectively, that would be my preference.
We certainly had quite a full discussion on this issue last week. On Liam McArthur’s point that it might be reasonable to ask the Government about its longer-term intentions with regard to progressing the agenda on full recovery of court costs, which I point out was introduced by the Labour-Liberal Administration before 2007 and is clearly a long-term plan, I think that it would be perfectly proper to ask the Government how it will continue with a policy that was introduced by the Liberal-Labour Administration. However, in view of the very full discussion that we had last week, I do not think that we should seek to delay this instrument.
Just for clarification, I should say to Liam McArthur, who obviously was not here last week, that it would be stretching a point to call the discussion that we had a full one. Given the reservations that I expressed about access to justice considerations with the court fees—albeit that the increase is very minor—I certainly welcome Mr McArthur’s suggestion that we find out a little more information.
I fully agree with Liam McArthur. Given that we have until 5 December, I do not think that we would be delaying things if we took a look at this issue. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to raise some of these questions, particularly with regard to longer-term plans; indeed, I feel that we only just got started on that issue the last time round. Given the Law Society’s strong representations, we should take the time to consider the matter fully.
I set great store by the information that we get from the Law Society—it is always very compelling—but I have to say that, in this case, it has offered up an extremely poor comparator. The legislation that was enacted by the UK Government that saw fees introduced that raised the level from zero to £1,200 obviously had the significant effect that we are talking about. I would not put in the same category a change from £78 to £100 for what is likely to be the bulk of claims.
The specifics of this instrument are separate from the Government’s overall plans. I think that Liam McArthur makes a very valid point, and I am very happy to try to understand it. However, I am always looking for access to justice and protection of the vulnerable issues, and when I see that there is no change to the Adults with Incapacity (Public Guardian’s Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2015, that there is no effect on the fees that we agreed in earlier legislation with regard to the sheriff appeal court or the sheriff personal injury court or that—and, in fairness, the Law Society submission refers to this—those in receipt of legal aid will not incur any court fees, I think that, on top of what in some instances are very modest increases, there seems to be the same level of protection that I referred to last week. I am comfortable about making a decision on the instrument today, although we should by all means try to understand the longer-term objectives.
I have to agree with my colleagues John Finnie and Stewart Stevenson that there is nothing terribly radical in the detail of the proposed court fees. I also agree on the wider issue of looking to see what the Government’s proposal is in the longer term. This is the third time that we have discussed the matter and I do not see any merit in delaying the legislation, given what we would achieve in the short time between now and 4 December. We should move ahead with it.
Likewise, I see no need to delay. Although I appreciate the collective determination in the room to have a long-term analysis in tandem, John Finnie made the point that although the Law Society paper makes reservations, it explicitly states:
“The legal aid scheme in Scotland also ensures that people eligible for the scheme do not have to pay their court fees. Also, if unsuccessful, people who are legally aided do not need to pay the court fees of their opponent.”
That point should be recognised.
A compelling point in the Law Society’s submission is about the dramatic fall in the number of people presenting to employment tribunals, which seems to suggest that there is a barrier to their doing so. The barrier is the increase in court fees, potentially.
We have a proposal that the discussion is continued to next week to allow us to seek a further response from the Government in order to properly tease out the issue. Last week, I raised the issue that the previous Justice Committee made a very strong statement that it did not believe that court fees should be used to pay for the reforms. Substantial reforms have still not been implemented and further reforms are in the pipeline. There are quite a few issues surrounding the matter. Are members content to continue the matter so that we can seek further evidence? I see that members are not content.
I will try and break the logjam that I appear to have created. I understand from discussions with the clerks that the SSI will come into effect on 28 November in any event, so if we were to seek further information, that would simply delay the process of parliamentary approval.
I hear what John Finnie and other colleagues have said about the increases in fees. There is still a question about why the Law Society submitted its paper to the committee so late in the day, but if there is an opportunity to explore the issues that it has highlighted in more detail, I do not see the downside of doing that, particularly in light of it not appearing to be the case that it would delay the implementation of the SSI.
I want to be clear about what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that we make no recommendation today on the instrument—along with possibly some other instruments—but seek another response from the Scottish Government to flesh out some of the issues raised? Are you suggesting that we put the instrument to one side until we get further information from the Government?
My preference would be to set aside the instrument, but the committee’s overwhelming view appears to be that we press ahead with it. We need to get information from the Government about the general context of cost recovery—and there pretty much seems to be unanimity about doing that. As I said, my preference would be to use the time that we have available—that is, until 5 December—to tease out the issues.
I am sympathetic to that. I am very conscious that, when John Finnie and I sat on the previous Justice Committee, we as a committee looked at the broad theme of access to justice. There is no question but that the instrument potentially—it might not necessarily be the case when we get down to it—raises enough issues for me to think that Liam McArthur’s proposal is a reasonable way forward.
I am a wee bit concerned about your continual reference to access to justice and the suggestion that, were your position on the issue not to be supported, somehow that would mean that the individuals who took that position were not supportive of access to justice. Everything that I said in relation to my qualification of the issue today and last week was about access to justice. Access to justice is to ensure that people receive protections. I have outlined the protections behind the instrument. It would be very disappointing if there were a misrepresentation of what was said in the previous committee’s report.
It is really about potential access to justice concerns—they may or may not be realised, which is essentially why we would be looking for more information.
The issue that has been alluded to is employment tribunals. If you had been outspoken—as I was—in opposing fees for employment tribunals, that would strengthen your position, convener, but I do not recall that being the case. You have cited that as a comparator. That was a UK reserved issue, which is now coming to Scotland. I do not recall outpourings from you or your party about access to justice in that context. We have seen the dramatic effect that the introduction of fees for employment tribunals has had.
I have outlined the protections that are there to ensure that access to justice will continue. I am keen that we make a decision on the order today.
I assure you that my comments are based on the written submission that we received from the Law Society and the quite startling hard figures on the drop in the number of people who are presenting as a result of the court fees—
Tribunal fees.
I am sorry—employment tribunal fees.
I repeat that that is a matter that is reserved to the UK.
Whichever it is, there has been a drop, the evidence for which has been presented. It is on that basis that I made my comments.
Liam, are you proposing that we postpone our decision, or are you content that we make no recommendation on the order at this stage?
I am content for us to seek the wider information—
But you are content that we make no recommendation in the meantime.
I want to clarify matters so that we understand the second decision, which it is clear that all of us will support.
Liam McArthur was in favour of us asking the Government for the bigger picture on the issue—where it intends to go on the recovery of costs—rather than taking a narrow focus on the order that is before us, and I supported that. I am not excluding us obtaining information on the order under consideration, but I think that Liam McArthur was asking about the bigger-picture stuff so that, the next time such an instrument comes before us, we can refer back to what the Government said. That is what I think that we are opting for.
I think that that is entirely accurate. I would particularly like to find out what the approach is going to be to eligibility thresholds and whether they will increase with inflation over time. The Law Society raised some sensible concerns about the situation south of the border. There is a risk of overcomplicating the set-up by subdividing thresholds and so on. It would be helpful to get a clearer sense of where the Government plans to go in that respect.
That is helpful. I believe that we have reached a consensus that we should make no recommendation on the order but take a look at court fees in the wider context at our next meeting. Are members content to proceed in that manner?
Members indicated agreement.
Sorry for my ignorance—I am only 10 meetings into my time on the Justice Committee. What does that mean? What have we agreed? Will the instrument go ahead?
It will go ahead, but we will get more information on the wider issue.
Thank you.
Upper Tribunal for Scotland (Rules of Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/333)
Do members have any questions or comments on the next statutory instrument? There being none, is the committee content to make no recommendation on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Tenant Information Packs (Assured Tenancies) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2016 (SSI 2016/334)
Do members have any questions or comments on the fourth negative instrument for us to consider? There being none, is the committee content to make no recommendation on the order?
Members indicated agreement.
First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber (Procedure) Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/339)
Do members have any questions or comments on the fifth negative instrument? As members have none, does the committee agree to make no recommendation on the regulations and, indeed, on all five negative instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the first panel of witnesses in our Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service inquiry to take their seats.
10:44 Meeting suspended.10:46 On resuming—