Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Official Report 370KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Bankruptcy Fees etc (Scotland) Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/118)

Item 3 on the agenda is consideration of a negative instrument. Although the Subordinate Legislation Committee has not drawn the Parliament’s attention to the regulations on any grounds within its remit, members will see in the annex to paper J/S4/12/17/1 correspondence that has been received from Citizens Advice Scotland. Members will also have received a letter from Money Advice Scotland.

Do members have any comments?

It might be useful to postpone consideration of the regulations and ask the relevant minister—Fergus Ewing, I believe—for the reasons why under the proposals, which I understand will specifically affect low-income, low-asset people filing for bankruptcy, the fees will double from £100 to £200.

I do not disagree with Jenny Marra’s point but do we have to postpone consideration of the regulations? Do we not have 40 days to seek clarification in writing?

As members appear to have concerns, I should perhaps note that the committee has a couple of options.

I think that it would be good to seek clarification in writing.

We can either write to the minister in question—it is indeed Fergus Ewing—and ask him to respond, or call him to give evidence at our next meeting. There is another option, but those are the first options we should consider. The clerk has also informed me that, if we decide to call the minister, he will have to come next week.

How much pressure is on next week’s meeting?

It does not matter—we can still call him.

I was just wondering whether we had a lot of work on.

No.

Do members want to call Mr Ewing to give evidence at next week’s meeting?

Yes. It would be good to clear the matter up.

I agree that we should call the minister, but I note that paragraph 6 of the Executive note says:

“the rate charged covers, so far as possible, the actual cost of delivering the functions undertaken”.

I would like a bit more clarity from the minister as to whether the £200 accurately reflects the cost.

As your point is now on the record, we can put it to the minister.

As I read the papers, a number of questions arose in my mind. Some groups obviously have reservations as to whether the people who will have to pay the fee will be able to afford it.

The first question for me is: what is the purpose of the £100 fee to begin with? Did it initially cover the cost? Is a fee, whether it be £100, £200 or whatever, necessary? How much is raised from a fee of £100? How much is it anticipated will be raised from a fee of £200? If the fee were abandoned, what would be the impact or downside? I do not have expert knowledge in this area, but if the people who are least able to bear the brunt of a £100 fee are the ones who face the prospect of the doubling of that fee, that is a real concern. We should understand why the fee exists in the first place and what the implications are for the future.

Does anyone else want to ask questions for the record, which we can alert the minister to?

The equality impact statement is said to be among the papers—if it is, I cannot see it.

Graeme Pearson and Jenny Marra have referred to low-income people, who are likely to be affected by the regulations. From my personal experience, there is often a gender aspect to the issue, in that it affects women with children whose fathers are absent—and there are all the complications that go with that. Can we get some more clarity around the equality aspects?

We will obviously wish to speak to the minister, who now knows what has been said as it is on the record.

It is possible for a member to lodge a motion to annul the regulations, which could be moved at next week’s meeting—or not, depending on what the minister has to say. If members want to cover their backs and say that we do not want the regulations, it is up to them to lodge a motion to annul. As we have heard, it would have to be moved next week.

How much notice do you have to give to lodge a motion to annul?

You have to do it so that it is in the Business Bulletin in time. It would have to be lodged on Monday to be in the Business Bulletin on Tuesday.

Is it not a slight difficulty that a motion has to be lodged before we have heard from the minister?

It is a belt-and-braces approach. I am just giving members advice. It is possible to lodge the motion to annul and not move it. Such motions can also be withdrawn. All I am saying is that, in fairness, if members are not content, it is possible to lodge a motion to annul.

By lodging a motion, a member gives notice that there is an issue, but a motion can be lodged and then leave to withdraw can be sought. Technically, members still have that belt and braces.

In that case, is it possible to move a motion to annul today?

No. You must lodge the motion and give notice.

The motion must be lodged outwith the committee.

Yes. It would be a proper motion, so it would have to be lodged. It would appear in Tuesday’s Business Bulletin and would be on our agenda. It is possible that you might feel, after hearing the minister’s evidence, that you are okay with the regulations, or the minister might decide to do something else—I am not pre-empting him; I do not know what he will do—but you will have covered yourself if you are not content with what is going on.

---

Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment) (Miscellaneous) 2012 (SSI 2012/125)

---

Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No 2) (Miscellaneous) 2012 (SSI 2012/126)

Item 4 is consideration of two instruments that are not subject to parliamentary procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has not drawn the Parliament’s attention to either instrument on any grounds within its remit. As members have no comments, are we content to note the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

10:13 Meeting continued in private until 10:37.