Legal Aid and Assistance By Way of Representation (Fees for Time at Court and Travelling) (Scotland) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/257)
Item 8 is subordinate legislation. We have one negative instrument to consider, which aims to bring in a consistent approach for how solicitors charge their time engaged at court across civil legal aid, criminal legal aid, legal aid in contempt of court proceedings and advice and assistance for matters relating to assistance by way of representation. The instrument is due to come into force on 10 November 2014. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee did not need to draw the attention of the Parliament to it on any grounds. Do members have any comments on it?
I am pleased that the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board seem to be content.
Well, bring out the cake! They are content—for the time being.
Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to the instrument?
Members indicated agreement.
Rules of the Scottish Land Court Order 2014 (SSI 2014/229)
Item 9 is consideration of another piece of subordinate legislation—an instrument that is not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The instrument sets out the practice and procedure to be followed in the Scottish Land Court with effect from 22 September 2014—it seems a bit pointless to consider it if it is already in effect. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has drawn the instrument to the attention of the Parliament for minor drafting errors and a failure to follow normal drafting practice. The DPLR committee also noted issues with the timing of the instrument. Are members content to endorse the concerns of the DPLR committee?
I find the Scottish Land Court’s response, in paragraph 2 on page 6 of our paper, strange at best and unprofessional at worst. It states:
“The general approach taken in drafting the Rules was to use gender-neutral terminology, but as you will be aware this can sometimes become cumbersome.”
I do not think that that is an appropriate response from a public body.
The DPLR committee’s report has picked that up—the DPLR committee does not miss much. Are members content to endorse that report?
Members indicated agreement.
Yes, but it is worth saying that I would have expected more from a public body in this day and age.
Right. That said, we move into private session.
12:04 Meeting continued in private until 12:12.Previous
Petitions