Official Report 605KB pdf
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers) 2026 (SSI 2026/208)
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers) (Amendment) 2026 (SSI 2026/252)
Welcome back. The third item on our agenda is to take evidence on two negative instruments: the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers) 2026, and the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers) (Amendment) 2026. I refer members to paper 2.
We are joined by Danielle McLaughlin, interim director at the Scottish Civil Justice Council, and Andrew Campbell from the Lord President’s private office. I welcome the witnesses to the meeting and thank them for joining us at the committee.
In the interests of time, we will go straight to questions from members.
I thank the witnesses for coming to the meeting at short notice. A letter was sent to us last night about the consultation on the changes proposed within the instruments. That letter sets out what unit price will be added and what the reduction would be for households. My question is about the equality impact assessment. I feel that the letter does not sufficiently address the impact that the change in unit price would have on women in particular. We know that many women in debt collection are facing domestic abuse or are in council tax arrears, and there is no mention of that with regard to the increase to the unit price. The consultation asked for views on a £5.40 unit price. One of the instruments before us sets out a price of £6.10. Why was there an increase to the unit price after the consultation? Why was a surcharge placed on the rural fee?
I thank the committee for inviting Danielle McLaughlin and me to appear at the meeting. To be clear, there is a distinction between our respective roles, in that I act for the court. In promulgating acts of sederunt, the court does not devise the policy that is enshrined in those instruments. The function of devising the policy on civil court matters has been conferred on the Scottish Civil Justice Council by an act of Parliament. Although the court retains its historic powers to make acts of sederunt on substantive policy-based matters, as discussed during the passage of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Act 2013, as a matter of general practice, the court defers to the Civil Justice Council to devise policy. For the purposes of the meeting, my colleague Danielle will answer policy questions.
Separately, I am the legal adviser to the Scottish Civil Justice Council. For the record, there are no divergent interests between the court and the council.
I will hand over to Ms McLaughlin, who is the interim director of the council, to answer the specific question.
I thank the committee for inviting us to the meeting. I hope that the letter that was circulated helped to establish the background and why the council proceeded with a substantive review on the charging of sheriff fees for officers of the court. As the letter sets out, the council sought to achieve a number of objectives with the review and the principal instrument that is before the committee. In 2025, the council’s strategic aim was to look at how we could move forward with the approach to charging for sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms. For the purposes of today’s meeting, I will refer to them as officers of the court.
The strategic aim was to look at a method that would be more transparent and easier to regulate going forward. The council had already done that with judicial expenses in 2019, so it saw such an approach as a successful means by which the public and those who use the services could see them in a different light. The council committed to a detailed consultation process, analysis and review, which took more than 15 months. I appreciate that that does not answer your question, but I thought that it would be useful to set out the context.
Only one advice agency, Money Advice Scotland, was consulted during the consultation. In its response, it said that it agrees with the simplification of the procedure—as do I, as I think that it needs to be transparent and simplified. However, it disagreed that the unit price should be £5.40. The instrument in front of me shows a further increase, with the unit price at £6.10. Money Advice Scotland is concerned that the price would be unaffordable for households and called for it to be scrutinised, which is why I am highlighting it. Where did the £6.10 unit price come from? How much of it would be made up of the genuine expenses of officers of the court as opposed to profit?
I cannot necessarily comment on the profit of sheriff officers in relation to any other matter. The SCJC proposes fees in relation to the role that they play in enforcing court business and supporting the administration of justice. However, to go back to your initial point, the council issued a consultation paper to the public at large. Although we promote our publications and consultations, we cannot guarantee who, if anyone, will respond to them. Money Advice Scotland did respond to raise concerns about the unit price, but the council took a proportionate view, as the majority of its members supported the increase and the approach that was taken.
In response to your specific question about how the value went from £5.40 to £6.10, the council, in the light of the consultation, concluded that there was to be an inflationary increase to the fees of officers of the court. The principal reason for that was the difficult balance that needs to be reached in order to support the administration of justice. We need sufficient numbers of officers to be available in order to administer those court orders. However, it is acknowledged that that has to be balanced against affordability for those who ultimately pay those fees, so rises have to be proportionate.
In looking at whether there should be an increase in the fees, the council, as it has done historically, looked at inflationary rates and the applicable indices—the consumer prices index and the consumer prices index with reference to owner occupiers. It saw that, over the 35-month period in which it had not looked at the fees, there had been an increase in the indices of between 12.5 per cent and 13.5 per cent. Therefore, the council believed that it was appropriate to apply a 13 per cent uplift. Before any uplift, it had consulted on the basis of the unit price being £5.40 if we were to introduce unit price charging, and the rise from £5.40 to £6.10 was an inflationary rise of 13 per cent.
Can I come back quickly on that inflation point? I promise that I will be quiet after that.
A couple of members have questions, so I will perhaps come back to you.
It relates to inflation specifically.
I have a question on the exact same point, but go ahead—we then need to hear from other members.
Absolutely. I appreciate the time.
I am aware that the fees were last uprated in 2024—with a statutory instrument under the same name—by more than 11 per cent. What we are talking about in that two-year period between 2024 and 2026 is a consistent 13 per cent rise across the board. I am aware that a lot of sheriff officers have healthy profits. For example, Scott and Co’s margin before acquisition write-offs is 20 per cent. I do not agree that the increase is proportionate in relation to household income, given that there were only two years between the 11 per cent rise in 2024 and the rise of between 12 and 15 per cent in 2026.
Your position is noted. I cannot necessarily comment on the profit margins of messengers-at-arms or other court officers in that regard. The council’s view was that there was a difficult balance to be struck between ensuring sufficient officer numbers—in order to ensure access to justice for people—and ensuring proportionality in the fees that are charged. The indices that were looked at indicated that 13 per cent was reasonable and, in that circumstance, the council applied that rate.
In so far as this helps, it is a historical application. Although the fees were previously uprated in 2024, that uplift was for an evaluation period up to September 2022 and did not take account of costs up to 2024. In the 35-month intervening period, increasing costs have impacted members of society including, crucially, those who are effecting service of those crucial documents.
Thank you. We can come back to this question, but we will be debating the motions on this next. Now is the chance for members to ask witnesses questions directly.
I thank the witnesses for the detailed letter that was circulated. Unfortunately, we did not get it until after 5 o’clock last night, but I did go through it. It is really clear about the steps that have been taken, and there are all sorts of appendices and references to the consultation. I hear your point about putting out a public consultation and people not coming back to you; however, that is, perhaps, a separate question of how we as a nation consult on these things, and I will not necessarily go into that.
Of course, we do want to be driven by the evidence. You have referred to CPI and also to CPIH, the latter of which is the consumer prices index including owner occupiers’ housing costs. Is it a uniform view that you will always look at those two things and not at, say, the retail prices index? I am just conscious of the different methodologies for looking at inflation, but is it a consistent view that you will look only at CPI and CPIH and average them out, or do you ever look at RPI? I just want to get an understanding of the processes involved.
12:15
I hope that the letter was helpful, and if you have any queries about it, I am happy to expand on and clarify things, as far as I can.
As for your query, convener, the council has been regulating fees since 2015—for just shy of 11 years—and in that period it has taken a reasonable-test view of inflation, looking primarily at CPI and CPIH as tools for measuring potential inflationary increases. It has always sought not necessarily to average the two indices but to take a commensurate approach. With the 2024 fee uplift, for example, it did not take the average; it took a different approach and sought to baseline things. The average was not the 11.9 per cent that the fees were increased by.
I want to reassure the committee that this is just one of the means and ways by which the council looks at the issue. It takes the indices, because that approach is generally the market-leading standard and because it has done so historically, but it has also sought to review the matter and apply different thoughts and processes.
The committee membership is made up of a number of stakeholders, including consumers and accountants, and their experience helps in exploring the position. As I hope that I have highlighted in my letter, if this instrument is agreed to—which is obviously the intention of the court and the council—that will not be the end of the matter. The council has committed to introducing a three-year review process so that we can look at whether the percentages and approaches in relation to inflation, and whether our methodology and the unit processes, are correct. I am working on the basis that the committee will be very interested in that, so as a member of the secretariat, I am happy to keep you informed of the process. That review is still in its early stages, but our discussions today will help the secretariat with it.
Thank you. I call Amanda Lindsay.
Thank you for coming along today, and for your letter. I want to ask you about the rural fees. I understand that, under the proposed arrangements, officers of the court are entitled to charge 33 per cent more for personal service of documents in remote and rural areas. Why the significant hike? Moreover, how do you define “remote and rural areas”?
Since 2012, there has been an automatic surcharge of 30 per cent on the service of documents in rural areas. That has ordinarily been seen as acceptable to address the additional challenges of serving documents in our remote communities. It has been 30 per cent since 2015, with no uplift in the intervening period. However, in acknowledgement of the council’s concerns about the decreasing population of sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms—which, in some areas of our country, has diminished to single figures—it was deemed appropriate to increase it by 3 per cent.
In answer to your second question, the term “remote rural area” is defined in the instrument, with reference to the underlying legislative definition in that regard.
In short, a surcharge has applied since 2015, and the council sought to look at the figure, having not uplifted it in the intervening period, to reflect the additional costs that have been incurred since then.
Thank you both for coming along this morning. I appreciate that this issue has been arriving at the equalities committee over a number of years—2024 was the last time that it was discussed—but I think that now, more than ever, we are conscious of the differences between our rural and urban areas and there is more of a conscious acknowledgement from politicians right across the political divide that we need to make sure that rural communities are not disadvantaged by the decisions that we take.
I understand that you are arguing that the additional 3 per cent is proportionate, but I am concerned that it is not proportionate if the costs are passed down, because it comes down to geography—there is no other reason apart from geography. Is there any further reassurance that you can give on that particular issue for rural communities?
As I alluded to earlier, one of the key commitments with this instrument is a three-year review process. It would be within the council’s gift to review, and, indeed, this committee or others could put in requests. The council receives requests to look at or review rules, and, if this instrument is passed, the review process that is envisaged would allow a discussion to be had on the application of the regulation.
I apologise—I said earlier that the regulation has been in place since 2015, but it has actually been in place since 2012. It could be reviewed through the review process or by others approaching the council.
It is really important to try to understand this SSI. I was not involved in the committee in previous years, so it has been really helpful to have you here and to hear that there would be a review process over three years.
If we did not pass the SSI at this point, could the review continue? Would that happen? Do we need to pass the SSI to allow the review to happen, or is it more that you feel that we will not have enough people undertaking the role if we do not get this uplift?
There are probably two aspects to that. The review is to align with the fact that this instrument would change the whole framework in which we regulate officers of the court. We are introducing something new, so we want to ensure that we can sense-check it with users, consumers and officers-at-arms. The review is aligned with that transformational change.
The creation of a unit-based charging system is seen as a strategic, important objective to support all users of officers-at-arms. The strategic position of the council is that the review will be aligned with the changing of the structure; it is not about having a review in and of itself. Crucially, when the council consulted on the proposals, it invited comments on the means and ways by which we could improve the system. Unfortunately, there was maybe not as much engagement on that question as there could have been in the light of the discussions that have occurred here.
The review is aligned with the passing of the current instrument. There are no commitments currently within the council’s strategic programme to commence a review independently of the passing of the instrument, because, as with all public bodies, we have a stringent programme of work. However, the key point is that the review is seen as an essential part of the introduction of a new system that we hope will be transparent and will allow greater discussion and review.
I have one more question. Again, it is to help me to understand this. The papers say that the threshold for lower-value court work is set at £1,500, but that has not been reviewed since 2008. Is there a reason for that, given that we are talking about uplifts for other things?
I also have a further concern. My reading of our papers is that, when the costs are passed on in the case of people with lower debt that is likely to be linked to poverty, or in the case of public debt, the individuals concerned could have proportionally more debt passed on to them than would be the case with some of the higher-value debt. Is that the correct reading of the information?
The focus on change will result in additional costs being incurred by certain parties. The council sees the application of reductions or the charging of surcharges as a balancing or tipping point. The instrument’s proposal to apply a 20 per cent reduction for claims under £1,500 is a mechanism to ensure that people can start to enforce their rights. Unfortunately, the balance is that those who are found responsible for not paying or responding to actions have to bear the cost. Crucially, the instrument does not purport to provide a reduction when bulk summary warrant payments are paid. The reductions are there to support those who are seeking enforcement through the provisions of initiating actions in particular.
I would like to get a bit of clarity here. That was quite a direct question from Carol Mochan. I appreciate that it is a matter of balancing or tipping points, but that was a direct question about whether the measures will disproportionately affect those who are experiencing poverty, in relation to smaller amounts. Was that a yes or a no, or are you not able to answer that question?
I am not able to answer that question today with direct reference to the data in front of me. It is acknowledged that there might not be as much data available across Scotland about the impacts of debt recovery and those facing actions as a consequence of the circumstances that we are living in as a society.
The mechanisms that the council has introduced are intended to reach a balance, so that those who are responsible take on a burden as a consequence of someone else enforcing their rights.
Holly Bruce is looking to come back in, but I have another question. If the instruments were to be annulled, what would that mean to the service? What implications would that have for you? If new instruments were to be developed, how long would that take? This is the “So what?” question about the outcomes of any decision that is taken in Parliament.
Speaking on behalf of the Scottish Civil Justice Council, and in relation to its work, if the instruments were not passed, the current system, as it is set out in a volume of documentation, would continue to apply and the ongoing charge rates set in 2024—which are actually dated as at 2022—would apply in relation to our sheriff officers.
In the course of the consultation, the council acknowledged that a diminishing volume of people are willing to uphold the post of an officer of court. That was a consideration as to why the changes were made. If the committee and the Parliament were to seek to annul the instruments, of the Parliament’s own will, the existing regimes would continue, which would not provide the mechanisms for review, the transparency or the benefits that were perceived and that were evidenced in a previous change to unit-based instruments for judicial expenses in 2019.
I would defer to Andrew Campbell regarding the mechanics of any changes. We would effectively need to start again from scratch. When I say “defer to Andrew” I mean in relation to the rhythm of matters. The council would have to go back and start from scratch, having worked for 15 months on consulting, in order to develop a revised response.
Thank you. I am trying to find out about potential unintended consequences should these instruments be annulled.
12:30
On the practicalities, both instruments are due to come into force at midnight tonight. If they are annulled, the current law will continue to apply. As Danielle McLaughlin said, that would mean that the fee rates would stay at 2024 levels. It would mean that there would be no benefits from the consolidation exercise, which has been considerable in terms of separating previously quite opaque figures. The current law just provides a monetary figure for the fees; the consolidation exercise carried out by the Council has tried to separate the constituent parts of those sums into the inflationary aspect—the unit value—versus the value of the cost for the task. The benefit of that exercise would be lost and a bit of transparency would be lost.
The council has a strategic work programme, and council members would have to consider the point at which they could revisit the whole exercise. As officials, we are not currently in a position to give the committee any assurance on how long that would take. The council has settled on its strategic objectives for the next two years, and revisiting this matter is not one of those. If the committee and the Parliament voted to annul the instruments, the council would, no doubt, reconsider whether it wished to adjust its work programme.
Fundamentally, that would be the impact of annulment, although I also record the fact that it would be unprecedented for an act of sederunt to be struck down by Parliament, particularly in the context of Parliament having conferred the function of undertaking the technical, detailed expert work of assessing what the fee levels for sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms should be and the committee’s deciding to annul both instruments on the basis of 30 or so minutes of evidence this morning. However, that is a matter for members and it is members’ prerogative, obviously. That would be the practical outcome.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your responses. First, I refer to the fact that, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have no issue with the simplification in the unit measure as the way of assessing the costs, and that is probably the meat of the review. What I have an issue with is the unit price, as I mentioned at the start of my remarks. That was consulted on at £5.40 per unit and has now increased to £6.10 per unit, regardless of the consultation outcomes, and advice services say that they have issues with that. That is the crux of the issue.
Carol Mochan helpfully identified the rise in fees for court work relating to debts of £1,500 or less and the fact that that might affect a key group of people. From my knowledge and on the basis of Scottish Parliament information centre research, that tends to relate to council tax arrears. Those fees will increase by 42 per cent to 50 per cent, because those cases now get less of a discount, so that would be a real-terms increase. Is my reading of that correct?
It is correct in the sense that the unit price has risen from £5.40, but, when the council consulted, it consulted on whether £5.40 was the starting point, and, separately, on whether there should be an inflationary increase on an annual basis. The two consultation responses, combined with the council applying its knowledge and experience in the really difficult task of balancing matters, brought us to the figure of £6.10.
What about the fees on debts of £1,500 or less?
Could you repeat the question?
The document that was provided to the committee last night said that the reduction that people with those debts get is not as much as it used to be, so how much is that? Can you refer to that?
After much consideration and as part of its consultation, the council looked at the current reduction. There are 18 items within the £1,500 window for such actions. The council looked at each of the 18 items and identified that there is a tipping point in relation to those items. Eight items relate to the commencement of proceedings, and, without any reduction, they might act as a barrier to commencing proceedings. The council looked at those eight items and at the average price for all 18 items and took the view that the average price was 33 per cent and that that should be the applicable reduction for those eight items. However, the council took cognisance of the balancing point in that we need sufficient numbers of the community to act as office-holders and office-bearers to enforce this, which reduced the percentage from the proposed 33 per cent, as illustrated in the consultation document, to 20 per cent. That was seen as an appropriate balance to support the continued effective service of documents and to support access to justice.
To confirm, for claims of £1,500 or less, postal diligence fees would rise from £29.27 to £43.92, which is a 50 per cent increase, and that would affect people in council tax arrears.
I believe that that is the correct figure. I cannot necessarily comment on whom it would affect—it would affect everyone who had that form of diligence served upon them.
Holly is addressing really important points. I recognise that you cannot answer some of them, but I want to ask you—because I have been asked this question—why the lower-value court work fee still relates to the 2008 figure of £1,500. Is there a reason why that figure is the same?
Yes. At the time, it was not within the council’s gift to change that. That would have to be considered alongside the Government and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, that was not within our gift, as I understand it.
That is really helpful to know.
Thank you. It is a complex area, and we appreciate your coming to the committee to answer members’ questions. As I said, the letter that we received was very helpful and included a number of links that allowed members to dive a bit deeper into the matter. Having looked at the consultation, it is clear that there was welcome feedback from Citizens Advice Scotland and Consumer Scotland—and that it was a technical consultation, which is maybe what has given rise to some of our questions. We really appreciate the additional information. Thank you for taking the time to give evidence.
I will suspend the meeting briefly.
12:37
Meeting suspended.
12:49
On resuming—
Item 4 is consideration of motions recommending annulment of the instruments on which we have just taken evidence. The motions have been lodged by Holly Bruce MSP. Given that the two instruments are closely related, I propose that we consider both motions at the same time. Unless any member objects, I will put a single question on both motions at the end of the debate. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
I will hand over to Holly Bruce to speak to and move the motions. As this is a formal debate, only MSPs are able to participate, which means that no further questions can be directed to any of the witnesses whom we heard from under the previous item.
Before I start, I refer to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am a sitting councillor in Glasgow City Council. I appreciate the committee’s time in debating the instruments, after I raised a number of concerns at last week’s meeting. I hope to address those in my comments.
We heard earlier from the Minister for Equalities and International Development that tackling child poverty and violence against women and girls are key commitments of the Scottish Government. I believe that they are also key commitments of the committee, having sat in various evidence sessions with members during the weeks that we have been together. We are focused on improving people’s lives and on outcomes.
In plain terms, the outcome of SSI 2026/208 is to increase fees by between 12 and 15 per cent across the board for households that are incurring debt. Fees on debts of less than £1,500 can increase by 42 to 50 per cent, as we heard earlier, in the questioning. There is also an increase in the surcharge on rural fees, from 30 to 33 per cent. That is all on top of the fact that the fees were already raised by just under 12 per cent in 2024.
People and households in debt pay these fees. People with council tax arrears and those who are facing evictions—the most vulnerable people in our society—pay these fees. We know from Citizens Advice Scotland that the most common debt-related queries that it receives are about council tax arrears. Public debt intensifies and sustains child poverty, as many members have highlighted, and Aberlour has been pushing for fees to be humane and to be considered in the context of the cost of living crisis. We have discussed the inflation increase but, as I said, in 2024, there was an increase of more than 11 per cent, and a 2 per cent increase was built in.
As I mentioned earlier, for certain sheriff officer companies, such as Scott and Co, which administers a lot of the system in Glasgow, their margin before acquisition write-offs is 20 per cent. That is a highly healthy and efficient profit margin.
Earlier, I asked a number of questions about the consultation. In the consultation, the proposed unit price was £5.40 but, in the instrument that is in front of us, it is £6.10. Further, the rise in the surcharge on rural fees from 30 to 33 per cent was not considered in the consultation. Discounts have been removed from precisely the people who are least able to pay—people in poverty and women fleeing domestic abuse.
In relation to consumer advocacy, the consultation heard only from Money Advice Scotland. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that any consultation was had with other debt advisory groups or debtors groups, so I feel that the consultation is weighted unfairly in that regard. Money Advice Scotland said in its consultation response that the SCJC must
“consult directly with consumer advocacy groups during the drafting process to ensure the instrument reflects the real-world challenges faced by consumers.”
Money Advice Scotland also said that it agreed with the simplification—as do I—but disagreed with the unit price of £5.40, which it was worried would be unaffordable. We have before us a £6.10 unit price, not £5.40. Money Advice Scotland was worried about it at £5.40.
My main issue is that there is no transparency on whether the increase in expenses is genuinely needed, rather than just being about profit. I do not believe that the measure is proportionate, and what we have heard today has not satisfied me on that.
Although I welcome the three-year review, it will not stop people being in debt right now, as we heard from the Scottish Civil Justice Council earlier, and it will not stop the impact on our rural areas. Therefore, I hope that others will support my motions to annul.
I move,
That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers at-Arms and Sheriff Officers) 2026 (SSI 2026/208) be annulled.
That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers at-Arms and Sheriff Officers) (Amendment) 2026 (SSI 2026/252) be annulled.
I thank Holly Bruce for bringing these Scottish statutory instruments and their complex nature to our attention. Given how things sometimes go through the Parliament, we do not always get the chance to debate them properly. It is great that we heard the evidence today, and I thank the two witnesses for coming here.
The evidence that we heard indicated that the situation can continue; we do not need to vote for the SSIs before us in order for that to happen or for sheriff officers to be able to do their job. We know that fee increases have taken place in the past few years.
I understand the desire to simplify the process and make it more transparent, but I did not pick that point up in the evidence today, so I cannot see a justification for the additional increase in the fees; the issue was more about making the arrangements simpler.
I have real concerns that, when the Scottish Civil Justice Council consulted on the proposals, it did not take enough evidence on what they would mean for people involved in lower-value court work. The council clarified today that it will take a greater proportion of the burden of reorganisation.
Our work on eradicating child poverty does not seem to have been taken into account. We have a responsibility to raise that issue and to ensure that any work that public organisations pursue takes it into account.
I wish to participate in the debate. I ask other members to indicate if they also wish to speak.
The consultation paper is very technical. Indeed, it describes itself as a technical consultation. I am acutely aware that, although the committee has discussed the matter and has not come to a firm agreement, we have collectively agreed that we will be evidence led in our committee work.
The letter that the Scottish Civil Justice Council provided, which came to all committee members last night, contained a huge amount of detail. There was technical detail about where the 13 per cent fee increase came from, with evidence on the CPI index versus the CPIH index and taking the average.
We have received evidence that has been really helpful. The technical consultation elicited a number of anonymous responses, so it is not fair, in this context, to say who has and has not responded to it. We do not know who the anonymous consultees are or what their background is. We can make assumptions, but we need to be really clear regarding the evidence.
My understanding is that the commencement date is written into the instruments, which will come into force, but there are technicalities in the processes in the Parliament, and we should ensure that we follow those completely.
I appreciate that the point here is a hugely technical one. There are political intentions, and the comments that Holly Bruce made on what we as a Parliament are committed to doing are on the record. However, we still have to consider the evidence that has been provided to us at the committee today.
I am content that there is enough evidence, and I believe that we probably should go ahead with the instruments, although I appreciate that other members may want to comment.
I will bring in Meghan Gallacher to speak first. There will be a chance for you to respond to all the comments at the end, Ms Bruce.
13:00
The paper that we received last night is quite a lengthy document, but the pieces that I pulled out from it gave a justification as to why the Government is following this particular process.
The review is important in this debate. As members have said, the issue is complex, but I hope that the review will lead to better outcomes, including through the work that the committee undertakes on civil justice and how particular decisions impact the people we represent. Fundamentally, that is what we are here to do.
I am still a little concerned about the rurality issue. I understand the responses that were given and the justification for what we are being asked to vote on, but my outstanding concerns regarding rurality will be reflected in my vote.
I am mindful of the number of fee increases, but I acknowledge the evidence that was given on the need to balance that with the reduction in the number of court officials carrying out the work. On Carol Mochan’s point, we must be mindful of the ability of the courts to operate.
I am concerned about two aspects. First, we have heard that the poorest will pay disproportionately more rather than less. Secondly, on Meghan Gallacher’s point about rurality, I understand that the 30 per cent charge dates back to 2012.
I am still reticent about the instruments, because the absence of consultation complaints is not the same as there having been an impact assessment, so that needs to be looked at.
No other member has indicated that they want to speak in the debate. I thank the members who have contributed. I invite Holly Bruce to respond to the comments and to indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw the two motions.
I will press the motions. I have heard what members have said, and I appreciate their time in scrutinising the instruments.
I understand that the justification for the fee increase is that it is based on inflation, but an instrument in 2024 already introduced an inflationary increase, with a 2 per cent increase built in, and I do not believe that we need to increase the fees again by 13 per cent in 2026.
We are in a cost of living crisis. As we have heard, the poorest will pay disproportionately more and people living in rural communities will pay more, but that does not mean that sheriff court officers will get a pay bump, because that is not detailed in the consultation.
I stand by the comments that I made earlier. I have no qualms about simplification of the process—that is welcome—but the unit price, which was stated in the consultation as £5.40, has been increased, following the consultation, to £6.10. We heard from Money Advice Scotland that the original price is unaffordable, so the increased price will not be affordable for those living in poverty. I encourage the Scottish Civil Justice Council to revise the unit amount and continue with its three-year review.
That is why I will press my motions to annul the instruments.
The question is, that motions S7M-01282 and S7M-01284, in the name of Holly Bruce, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.
For
Bruce, Holly (Glasgow Southside) (Green)
Lindsay, Amanda (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Reform)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Hagmann, Katie (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh North Eastern and Leith) (SNP)
Abstentions
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scot and Lothians West) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 3, Abstentions 1.
That means that it is for me, as chair, to use the casting vote. I have already voted against the motions and will stick to that.
Motions disagreed to.
That concludes the agenda item, and I thank everyone for debating the matter.
Act of Sederunt (Taxation of Judicial Expenses Rules) (Amendment) 2026 (SSI 2026/238)
The next agenda item is consideration of an instrument subject to annulment: the Act of Sederunt (Taxation of Judicial Expenses Rules) (Amendment) 2026.
I refer members to paper 3. Do members wish to comment on the instrument?
I appreciated Holly Bruce bringing her motions to annul and the discussion that we had earlier. I listened carefully to the debate. I am a substitute member of the committee but suggest that the committee might wish to consider continued scrutiny of the issues raised, which were important.
The fact that they were negative instruments made the proposed annulment futile, because the instruments will come into effect by the end of the day, but the issues raised will remain pertinent and the committee may want to continue scrutiny of those points.
That is a helpful comment about the previous agenda item. You are absolutely correct that we have a scrutiny role and must ensure that we carry it out.
Do any other members wish to comment on the instrument before us now? Are there any comments or questions?
They are interrelated.
Yes. There are various technical points. No member has indicated a wish to make any further comments. Are members content not to make any recommendations to Parliament on the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our public business. We will now move into private session to consider the remaining item on our agenda.
13:08
Meeting continued in private until 13:11.