Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013


Contents


Subordinate Legislation


Police Pensions (Contributions) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (SSI 2013/89)

The Convener

In the interests of time, we will move straight on to the agenda item 3, under which we have three negative instruments to consider, the first of which is the Police Pensions (Contributions) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2013.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn the instrument to the Parliament’s attention on the ground that it was not laid within the required timescale, at least 28 days before it came into force. [Interruption.] Could I ask people to leave quietly please?

The SLC sought an explanation from the Scottish Government for the omission and was content with the explanation given. However, this committee is required under standing orders to consider the letter to the Presiding Officer on the breach of laying requirements. That letter is on page 6 of paper J/S4/13/11/1.

Do members have any comments on the statutory instrument or on the laying of the letter to the Presiding Officer, or are members content to make no recommendations in respect of the instrument?

Graeme Pearson

It would be fair to comment that the Government did have an opportunity if it so wished to change the increase indicated in the pension contributions for police officers in Scotland. The Scottish Government has made a major case of indicating that it is treating the police service in Scotland differently from its colleagues in England and Wales. It was certainly within the Scottish Government’s gift, should it have wished, to take a different approach, but I note that it has chosen to maintain a standard approach across the United Kingdom. I feel that that comment must be made as the alternative view is peddled out day and daily.

You are very good at putting such comments on the record.

It will not surprise you, convener, that I will give that alternative view. The Winsor imposition south of the border was absolutely atrocious and has had a terrible effect on police morale there.

I will let you finish your point so that it is on the record and then we will get back to the business.

John Finnie

I welcome the assurance that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave in respect of that. I also regret that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my own MP, threatened action were any changes to be made to the pension. Graeme Pearson makes his point for his reasons but I do not think that it accurately reflects the feeling out there.

There we are—tit for tat.

I will briefly say that if we had taken the alternative view, it would have had consequences.

Having put that on the record, do members agree to make no comment or recommendation in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

You are happy chappies.


Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Framework and Appointed Day for Strategic Plan) Order 2013 (SSI 2013/97)

The Convener

The second instrument is the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Framework and Appointed Day for Strategic Plan) Order 2013 (SSI 2013/97). The Subordinate Legislation Committee was content with the instrument.

Do members have any comments? Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Excellent.


Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Rural Housing Bodies) Amendment Order 2013 (SSI 2013/100)

The Convener

The third instrument is the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Rural Housing Bodies) Amendment Order 2013 (SSI 2013/100). The Subordinate Legislation Committee was content with the instrument.

Do members have any comments? Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you.


Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Lay Representation) 2013 (SSI 2013/91)

The Convener

Agenda item 4 is consideration of an Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Lay Representation) 2013 (SSI 2013/91), which is not subject to parliamentary procedure. We would not normally consider no procedure instruments, but the Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn this one to the Parliament’s attention on a number of drafting grounds. The SLC was particularly concerned that the drafting of this instrument is unclear because it governs lay representation in the sheriff court and is therefore directed at people who are not legally qualified.

Do members have any comments?

Roderick Campbell

I take on board the SLC’s point about the ease of understanding the instrument, particularly for somebody who is not legally qualified, but I also take the point that the whole area is to be reviewed by the new civil justice council. I do not agree with the conclusion of the SLC and the interpretation that it gives of the instrument, therefore I do not want to endorse the conclusions that it makes in paragraph 15.

Do members agree to note the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.