Police (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/220)
The committee has three items of subordinate legislation to deal with this morning, the first of which is the Police (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/220). The clerks have prepared a note for members that explains the regulations. Members should also have a copy of the regulations.
Is a move from regulation to determination absolutely necessary?
That is a good question. The note says that that has already happened in England and Wales. Police pay is negotiated on a United Kingdom-wide basis, so such a move may be absolutely necessary. For the purposes of clarity, we could ask whether Scotland has to follow suit and what the implications of doing so would be.
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2003 (SSI 2003/246)
Members have a background note for the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2003 (SSI 2003/246). Such legislation is made annually and sets out fees for shorthand writers. It should be noted that acts of sederunt are made by the Lord President and not by the Scottish ministers, so members' comments should be directed at the Lord President rather than ministers.
I notice that the act of sederunt also has not been laid before the Parliament within the usual time scale, primarily as a result of dissolution, but there is no explanation for the delay. An explanation was provided in respect of the Police (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2003: negotiations took place right up to the last minute and nothing could be done until those had been completed. However, there is no explanation as to why consideration of the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2003 has been left so late. I understand that the dissolution period creates an inconvenience, but I would have thought that, given that there is a fixed period, matters should have been flagged up earlier.
No note has been provided, as the act of sederunt was laid during dissolution and there was no committee to scrutinise it. If the member wishes, we can write to the Lord President to say that, in future, we would prefer a delay, if that is possible. The act of sederunt relates to fees payable to people who work in the court system, but I am not clear whether delays might affect their annual pay.
The elections were not a secret—everybody knew what day they would be held on. I would have thought that there would have been a timetable that took the elections into account and that things would have been brought forward in order to ensure that the act of sederunt was put through the Parliament timeously, as it should have been.
Are members happy for that comment to be made?
I take Michael Matheson's point, but it should be pointed out that the previous Subordinate Legislation Committee had a large work load towards the end of the previous parliamentary session—I can vouch for that. That might have been part of the practical difficulties, but we should find out about the matter.
As dissolution is obvious, such matters should be brought forward. I am a new member and am interested to find out what the committee usually discusses. However, the first two matters that we have discussed today are not usual matters at all—as a result of delays, they are unusual matters. The dissolution period was not a surprise, so we should ask about the matter for the next time.
We will politely make that point and check that everything is in order.
Criminal Legal Aid (Youth Courts) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/249)
Members have a note about the regulations. Again, the scrutiny period for the regulations has passed.
I echo what I said about the act of sederunt. There should have been a clear timetable. I understand that dissolution is an inconvenience, but it was known when it would be.
Does any member dissent from that view?
I want to make a different point. What makes up the bulk of the £100,000 that is mentioned? Do the £50 fees for appearances for community supervision orders make up the bulk of that amount, or do the solicitors of choice make any difference?
If you want that matter to be clarified, we could include your question in a letter to the Executive.
A breakdown would be helpful.
I wonder whether members—particularly as there are a number of new members—are happy with the attached note to the regulations. Sometimes I think that assumptions are made about areas in which people might not have knowledge, such as how duty solicitors work. That could have been quite important in respect of the regulations both because they relate to youth courts and because fixed fees have been quite controversial.
I would not claim expertise in subordinate legislation at all. However, the note is helpful for me and for all members. I like the narrative explanation in plain English. That is always helpful. I commend the clerks for providing the note.
Hear, hear.