Subordinate Legislation Committee, 26 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002

Official Report 120KB pdf

---

Instruments Not Laid Before the Parliament

---

Instruments Not Laid<br />Before the Parliament

---

Act of Sederunt (Summary Cause Rules) 2002 (SSI 2002/132)

There are no particularly serious points on the rules. There are just some small typos. We have had no details about substantial changes to the rules.

What about the sexist language?

We will make sure that our report records that Brian Fitzpatrick says that there is sexist language in the rules.

The rules are not gender neutral.

Yes, sheriffs are always male according to the rules.

I know some female ones.

Yes, but please do not tell us just now.

---

Act of Sederunt (Small Claim Rules) 2002 (SSI 2002/133)

There are similar points to be made about this act of sederunt as were made about the previous one.

---

Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No 2) (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) 2002<br />(SSI 2002/136)

There is a missing footnote and we should draw that to the attention of the court by way of an informal letter.

Very, very politely.

Politely, but not too deferentially.

---

Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment) (Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001) 2002 (SSI 2002/137)

This is the last item on the agenda.

We need to write another respectful letter about a missing footnote.

It should shade on the unctuous, I think.

Who is going to word it?

I wish to make a short point about both the acts of sederunt. Perhaps we might get a briefing with a view on the scope of the committee's remit.

Both documents are essentially the same as the summary cause rules that I would have memorised 20-odd years ago as a baby solicitor. The small claim rules are just a bastardised version of the summary cause rules, and both are supposed to be the route map for ordinary litigants who find themselves in the sheriff court without legal representation. Both sets of rules are highly unintelligible for no good reason. Their English could do—at least—with a plain English check. It strikes me that the Subordinate Legislation Committee is the place to do that.

I can see already that there is a theme about consolidation, which is one of my hobby-horses. However, another theme is the unnecessarily contrived language of documents, particularly in the NHS regulations, as was mentioned earlier. People look up those regulations and expect to be able to read and understand them. My test is that a reasonably competent adult should be able to work their way through the small claim rules and summary cause rules and get a good jalouse of what is going on. That simply is not the case just now.

Excellent, Brian: 10 out of 10. We are grateful for those critical comments on the language of documents and regulations, which is the sort of good work that the committee should be doing, although I do not know how much work that will cause other people. Thank you very much indeed.

Meeting closed at 11:46.