Justice 1 Committee, 27 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Official Report 286KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Act of Sederunt<br />(Fees of Solicitors and Witnesses in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2005<br />(SSI 2005/149)<br />Act of Sederunt<br />(Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2005 (SSI 2005/150)

Item 2 is consideration of subordinate legislation. I refer committee members to the correspondence from the Lord President's office, which has been circulated as a late paper—everyone should have it—and relates to the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors and Witnesses in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2005 (SSI 2005/149) and the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2005 (SSI 2005/150). Committee members will recall the debate that we had on these acts of sederunt at last week's meeting, when we asked for more information, which we now have. I invite members to comment on the letter that we have received from the Lord President's office.

I read what the Lord President said, but I am not terribly sure that it lightens my darkness. Perhaps I should get new batteries for my torch. However, my comments and concerns about the subject are general and not particular to this instance.

In view of the other business that the committee has to deal with today and at other times, I am not minded to make anything more of the matter at this stage, but I plan to find time to examine the subject more generally because there is widespread concern among many people in Scotland about the cost of going to law. We have to make the law more accessible to people than it is. My attempts to hold down the costs for people who have to go to law via such mechanisms—it is a very small contribution to helping people—are part of an on-going subject in which I will retain an interest. On the basis of last week's discussion, I believe that other members have similar, if not identical, concerns.

I am not sure what more can be gained from chasing this example because it has more to do with fees that can be recovered from an unsuccessful party. However, one point in the Lord President's letter is worth highlighting. Reference is made to the fact that the instruments have no implications for the public purse other than if the pursuer is a Government department. We should bear it in mind for future reference that we as MSPs are clearly required to look after the public purse. We should be vigilant to challenge the attitude that an increase that affects the public is any more acceptable than one that does not. Very often, it is the individual member of the public rather than the local government body who is most affected by such increases in fees; indeed, Government simply passes on such increases to the general taxpayer.

I welcome the correspondence from the Lord President, which has shed more light on how the increase was calculated. I am reassured that it was based on a range of practices, from big and small firms, and on the cost of actuaries. There seems to be rhyme and reason to the increase and—like Bruce McFee—I am reassured that any impact on the public purse will be negligible. It was worth asking for further clarification and I am satisfied with the letter.

I, too, welcome the response from the Lord President as well as the fact that it was turned around quickly because the information was required for today's purposes.

I understand Stewart Stevenson's concern about the public purse and the debate about spending, but I welcome in particular the increase in fees for witnesses. That is an essential part of the criminal and civil justice systems and there has been a substantial increase in the upper limit, although probably not enough. Many witnesses do not get their full expenses covered and do not get full payment from their employer while they attend court. I am happy for further work to be done on that and I welcome the substantial increase in the upper limit.

Are members satisfied that they have a bit more information and are they content to note the two instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sexual Offences Act 2003<br />(Prescribed Police Stations) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2005<br />(SSI 2005/156)

I invite members to consider the note that has been prepared by the clerk and which provides background information on the regulations. SSI 2005/156 is subject to the negative procedure. The instrument is a long-titled piece of subordinate legislation with which we have dealt before. We will probably see many more such instruments because they are required in relation to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if even minor changes are made to police stations. Are members content to note the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.