Prior Rights of Surviving Spouse and Civil Partner (Scotland) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/436)
The committee first considered this negative instrument at last week’s meeting, when it agreed to write to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to explain why the limit for the housing prior right is proposed to be increased significantly. The committee also asked for further information on the Scottish Government’s plans to raise awareness of the importance of writing a will. The response from the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs is included in paper 1. Do members have any comments?
Having raised the issue last week, I formally record my thanks to the minister for her helpful response. It possibly begs questions about the existing law of succession, but that goes beyond the order. I am happy with the response and do not want to take the matter further.
Do members agree?
Do we agree to make no recommendation on the order?
Charities References in Documents (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/446)
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has not drawn the Parliament’s attention to the regulations on any of the grounds in its remit. If members have no comments, are they content to make no recommendation?
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers-at-Arms) (No 2) 2011 (SSI 2011/431)
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Sheriff Officers) (No 2) 2011 (SSI 2011/432)
Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No 8) (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures) 2011 (SSI 2011/441)
Item 4 concerns three acts of sederunt that are not subject to any parliamentary procedure. Do members have comments?
I notice that messengers-at-arms are getting a 3.8 per cent increase in their fees, while everybody else seems to be having a pay freeze. Is there some reason for that?
Do you want us to write to find that out?
It would be interesting to know the scale of fee increases. Messengers-at-arms are in effect contracted—they operate in the private sector but have their fees sanctioned by us.
We are not quite clear about whether the Government or the Scottish Court Service sets the fees. Do you want us to pursue the issue?
It is the courts that set the fees, as the relevant instrument is an act of sederunt.
Do you want us to pursue the question?
In fairness, to put the increase in context, it might be interesting to know the recent history of fee levels and increases. Fees might not have been increased for a number of years—I do not know—in which case the proposed increase would be entirely appropriate.
I recollect from reading the papers at the weekend that the instrument is something to do with the cost of travel.
That is right—it relates to petrol expenses.
That seems reasonable, given fuel price increases.
I am happy to pursue the matter—lots of people have increased travel costs.
On Jenny Marra’s point, if I understand the cover note, the act of sederunt makes a specific amendment to fees for travel in remote areas, which I agree with, but it also substitutes
I will not spend any more time on the subject. We will simply write to ask for clarification about increases over, say, five years. Fees might have been frozen for that time, so the increase might be reasonable.
That might have been the position, in which case the increase would be fine.
Next
Committee Bills