Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Official Report 554KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Firemen’s Pension Scheme (Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2014 (SSI 2014/59)

---

Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Order 2014 (SSI 2014/60)

---

Police Pensions (Contributions) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/62)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of five negative instruments. The purpose of the first three, which come into force on 1 April, is to increase members’ contribution rates in public service pension schemes in accordance with the 2010 spending review. I also note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is content with them.

Do members have any comments?

I will not object to them, because it would be a futile exercise, but I find it deeply depressing that the Scottish Government was precluded from doing anything because of the intervention of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, and his threat to remove moneys. This attack on public sector workers is simply not merited.

I reiterate those comments. The fact is that we were going to have £50 million taken out of our budget. It is an absolute disgrace.

When we spoke to the police, one of their main concerns was about what was happening to their pensions. Of course, that matter is subject to UK legislation.

Do members agree to make no recommendations on the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Police Service of Scotland (Performance) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/67)

The purpose of the regulations, which also come into force on 1 April, is to introduce a new definition of “unsatisfactory performance” as

“an inability or failure of the constable to perform the duties of the constable’s role or rank (or both) to a satisfactory standard.”

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is content with the regulations. Do members have any comments?

I was concerned that the proposals make a change to who can hear the appeal. The policy note says:

“An appeal can now be heard by a Senior Officer, rather than the Chief Constable”,

which is what happens under the Police Service of Scotland (Performance) Regulations 2013. It would have been useful to have had an indication of the representations from the unions on that matter.

As the regulations come into force on Tuesday, there is nothing procedurally we can do. Nevertheless, your remarks are on the record.

Are members content to make no recommendations on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/68)

The purpose of the regulations, which come into force on Tuesday 1 April, is to introduce procedures that are more akin to modern employment practices and which take into account the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service principles. They also set out the standards of professional behaviour that constables should maintain during their service.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee agreed to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament for two reasons. First, it agreed that the form or meaning of the instrument could be clearer. Although regulation 7 provides that a constable may be legally represented in any misconduct hearing or appeal hearing, the effect of regulation 25(8)(b) is to make legal representation at an appeal hearing subject to the discretion of the person determining the appeal, so it may, as such, be refused in cases other than those where disciplinary action constituting demotion in rank or dismissal has been ordered.

Secondly, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee agreed to draw regulations 15 and 16 to the committee’s attention. It suggests that we consider whether the exercise of the right of a constable to object to the appointment of an assessor, a solicitor or an advocate to advise at misconduct proceedings might be frustrated by the fact that the appointment of such persons is not a matter on which the constable is required to be given notice in the misconduct form.

Do members have any comments?

Strange though it might seem, the regulations actually enhance conditions.

Can you explain why that might be the case? They seem to me to diminish them.

The top three options of dismissal, requirement to resign or reduction in rank entitle an officer of the federated ranks to legal representation. Under the previous system, there was no such entitlement. There will now also be an entitlement to legal representation for very low options such as reprimands, cautions, fines and stoppage of increments.

The regulations did not seem to be an improvement to me, but you assure us that they are better.

That is certainly my reading of them. As with other issues, we can rest assured that had there been any concerns we would all have been lobbied very strongly.

Thank you for that.

Are members content to make no recommendations in relation to the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

We now move into private session.

12:26 Meeting continued in private until 12:37.