Contents
- Attendance
- Criminal Justice Bill
- Subordinate Legislation
Subordinate Legislation
Firefighters’ Pension Schemes (Scotland) Amendment Order 2024 (SSI 2024/26)
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Prescribed Police Stations) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/30)
Our second item is consideration of two negative Scottish statutory instruments. I refer members to paper 2. Do members have any questions on the instruments or are we content with both?
I have a question. I would not want in any way to hold up the passage of SSI 2024/26, which removes historical discrimination, but some outstanding issues are not covered in the SSI and I wonder whether we could get further information from the Scottish Government.
A significant part of the Fire Brigades Union response to the UK-wide consultation relates to the issue of aggregation, which is not covered in the regulations. Aggregation only applies to some members who joined the Fire and Rescue Service before April 2006, but it is an outstanding issue that I am sure—or I would hope—that we would all want to be addressed. It would be useful to get an understanding of the Scottish Government’s position on that. I appreciate that there are on-going UK-wide discussions, but it would be useful to know whether the Scottish Government considered going further, or what representations it is making in relation to those issues.
Thanks for that, Katy. It is noted.
I have comments on both SSIs; I will start with the one on firefighters that Katy Clark has just mentioned. I see that the Scottish Government has put a wrong date in it. It is a mistake, and it does not look like it will have any impact whatsoever, but the DPLR Committee has said to us that the date should be corrected. The date relates to death-in-service payments for firefighters. The Scottish Government has said that, even though the wrong date is on the order, any applications for payment would be honoured if they are received by what is considered to be the correct date. The Government’s position appears to be “trust us”—applications after the date on the order are not likely to happen and, if they were to happen, the Scottish Government would respect them. I think that that is in writing.
I wonder whether, for technical reasons and in line with what the DPLR Committee has asked, we should consider ensuring that the date is fixed before the SSI proceeds, or whether we are happy with the SSI as it is and that it is just a technical matter.
I turn to the SSI on sex offender notification. Essentially, it removes Tain from the list of police stations in which a registered sex offender notification requirement can be fulfilled. A Sunday Post investigation earlier this year found that there has been a significant rise in the number of registered sex offenders in the Highlands—it has gone up 50 per cent in two years. That is attributed to people who are on the registered sex offender list seeking to go somewhere where they are perhaps not known.
I note that, on page 7 of paper 2, the Scottish Government says that
“the local councillor ... has been informed”
of the change for the police station. It says “local councillor” in singular, but the ward of Tain in Easter Ross has three councillors, and I am curious to know whether they have all been consulted. I dare say that they would not particularly object to registered sex offenders no longer attending at their local police station. Perhaps more importantly, have the councillors in the police station area where those offenders are now to be directed been consulted? I do not want to slow the process, but I put that out there.
I assume that that is a question that we can take away and confirm. It is a fair point to raise.
Coming back to the issue in front of us, can I confirm that you are content with the SSIs as they are, and that we can follow up on the points that you have raised?
Is this a final position, or will we have more time?
As it stands, we are being asked to express today that we are in agreement with the SSIs. We have noted the points that you have made. Obviously, if you were not content, that would hold things up. I would refer to Stephen Imrie on the timescales that we have. In either case, we are able to follow up the points that you have made and clarify them.
No, I am content—we are in agreement. I am glad that we can look at those points.
Perfect. Is there anything that you want to come in on, Stephen? No; okay.
Are members content with both the SSIs as they are, bearing in mind the comments that have been made?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you for that.
That concludes our public agenda items. Our next meeting on 13 March will continue the consideration in private of our draft stage 1 report on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill.
09:44 Meeting continued in private until 12:47.Previous
Criminal Justice Bill