Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (Administrative Support) (Specified Persons) Order 2015 (SSI 2015/224)
The order adds the Scottish sentencing council to the list of persons to which the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service must ensure administrative support is provided. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has not drawn the Parliament’s attention to the order. If members have no comments on the order, are they content to make no recommendation on it?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Sentencing Council (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/225)
The regulations set out the procedure for the selection and nomination of members of the Scottish sentencing council. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has no concerns on the regulations. Do members have any comments?
I have a number of comments about the selection for appointment, which we have discussed previously. The clerk’s paper says:
“The regulations require that before a person can be appointed as the advocate or solicitor member of the Council, the Lord Justice General must consult with the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and the President of the Law Society of Scotland, respectively.”
I find it quite strange that there seems to be a double-check on some people getting into the council, but the policy memorandum for the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill, which we discussed under the previous item, says under the section on equal opportunities:
“In appointing the members of Community Justice Scotland, Scottish Ministers must act in a manner which encourages equal opportunities. Scottish Ministers have recently launched a partnership for change pledge, called ‘50:50 by 2020’ to challenge all private, public and third sector bodies to achieve gender balance on their boards by 2020. It is expected that the appointment … will comply with this pledge”.
I would like a similar provision to apply to the sentencing council.
The note on impact assessments in the clerk’s paper states that the criminal justice division has said:
“We have considered the impact of policy on particular groups of people (their age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or belief or whether disabled or not). We are not aware of any evidence that any of the equality strands will be affected by these regulations.”
With respect, convener, that is the same bland statement that we get with every piece of legislation.
I do not mean to be bland. I have never been accused of being bland before, but there we go.
It is a wee bit difficult. I am slightly confused: the clerk’s paper says that the council will have “three legal members”, then it talks about one advocate and one member of the Law Society of Scotland. It is quite difficult to deal with that on a gender-balanced basis, if those people are, in effect, representing institutions. However, I take John Finnie’s point.
We are never going to get out of the bit here. The danger is that members can be self-selecting. I know that there is a tension here because people self-nominate. However, there is a finite pool. If the general principle applies to the previous matter that we discussed, I would have thought that Scottish ministers would want it to apply similarly to this.
We know from past experience on this committee that there is a marked reluctance to appear to challenge the legal establishment in any way. Well, we want the legal establishment to be as representative of the wider community as we want every other public body to be. I would be guided by you, convener, as to whether we can ask for that principle to be applied to this series of appointments.
My understanding is that we must report by 7 September, which of course is next Monday. We can raise those concerns with, I think, the Lord President and the Government. I am not sure—bear with me. I suspend the meeting for a moment.
11:16 Meeting suspended.
We have clarified the processes. I propose that we write to the Lord Justice General to ask that he takes cognisance of the Government’s policy commitment to move towards a 50:50 gender balance by 2020 for selections for appointment to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, in terms of the order. Are you content with something along those lines, John?
Yes. Thank you, convener.
It would just underline the point.
It is the Scottish sentencing council.
Sorry—I beg your pardon. It is the Scottish sentencing council. I like to be reminded—thank you for that.
Are members content to make no recommendation relating to the instrument, given what we will put out in writing?
Members indicated agreement.
That will be reflected in the Official Report. I am content.
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session 1994 and Sheriff Court Rules Amendment) (No 2) (Personal Injury and Remits) (SSI 2015/227)
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session 1994 Amendment) (No 3) (Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014) 2015 (SSI 2015/228)
Agenda item 5 is consideration of two instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure: SSI 2015/227 and SSI 2015/228 will amend rules of court mainly in consequence of the coming into force of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has drawn the Parliament’s attention to the instruments, as they contain minor drafting errors. The Lord President’s private office has undertaken to lay amending instruments to correct the errors. Are members content to endorse the DPLR Committee’s comments on the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. We move into private session.
11:21 Meeting continued in private until 11:57.Previous
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill