Adults with Incapacity (Public Guardian’s Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 (SSI 2012/289)
Court of Session etc Fees Amendment Order 2012 (SSI 2012/290)
High Court of Justiciary Fees Amendment Order 2012 (SSI 2012/291)
Justice of the Peace Court Fees (Scotland) Order 2012 (SSI 2012/292)
Sheriff Court Fees Amendment Order 2012 (SSI 2012/293)
Under item 3, there are five negative instruments for the committee to consider. All relate to fees. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has identified and drawn our attention to drafting errors in four of them, which is why they are before us. Members may wish to comment on those errors.
I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that the instruments have not been drawn to our attention just because of the drafting errors but would have come to the committee in any case, because we are the lead committee.
You are correct—I beg members’ pardon.
I want to put on record my comments about the Scottish statutory instruments as a whole. At this time of recession, and with welfare reform going through Westminster, large fee increases in our courts are particularly troublesome. They make litigation for people who are on low and limited incomes much more difficult. As welfare reform progresses through Westminster, it is likely that there will be more litigation, with people looking to take their cases to court.
I do not think that the instruments refer to full cost recovery, although I may be wrong about that.
I have sympathy with Jenny Marra’s comments. The papers state that the equality impact assessment will be “published shortly”. Perhaps I should have checked to see whether the assessments are online, but they would certainly inform us about the matters that were raised quite properly by Jenny Marra.
Full cost recovery does not relate to the cost of court expenses; it relates to the cost of the processes. I may be wrong about that—perhaps Rod Campbell can help me out here. Is it correct that the full cost of the processes would be simply the fees chargeable for the laying of the various court papers? Is it court fees and fees for services offered by, for example, the Court of Session?
I am not certain.
It does not include judicial costs.
No.
We are talking about outlays that people must make for petitions, summonses and writs.
Has the general principle been discussed recently?
Lord Gill discussed the issue.
I appreciate that.
Would the committee be happy to get more information about the costs, against the background of welfare reform?
I thought that the cabinet secretary was discussing the criminal legal aid threshold of £68.
That is correct.
However, I never heard him clarify that he was also looking to raise the civil legal aid threshold. Did he say that?
He did. He definitely said that, if he raised the criminal legal aid threshold, he would raise the civil threshold.
Is it proper to say that the business and regulatory impact assessment and the equalities impact assessment will be “published shortly”?
What document are you referring to?
That is what the policy notes say about the impact assessments. We are considering instruments without the opportunity of looking at the assessments. As a matter of procedure, is that permissible?
Does the committee want to defer taking a view on the instruments?
Can we take oral evidence from the cabinet secretary or the minister?
In the first instance, we would write to the cabinet secretary rather than take oral evidence. If members wish, we can look at the instruments again next week. In the meantime, the questions that members have asked can be put to the cabinet secretary. If members send their questions to the clerks, we will draft a letter to the cabinet secretary and have answers before we next consider the instruments. Would doing that be satisfactory?
Yes.
The Government will not be happy about my saying this, but I want to ask about the number of times that amending instruments must be laid to correct instruments before they come into force. We always seem to see that. Shall we ask how often the committee has had to deal with amending instruments, let alone substantial SSIs?
When we prepare for meetings, if we think that SSIs are coming before us because of drafting errors rather than because we need to consider their substance, that is slightly misleading.
I have said already that what I said at the beginning was my mistake.
Okay—I see.
I have already corrected that.
We all have the cabinet secretary’s letter, which came with our papers. It says:
The cabinet secretary has also said that publicly in interviews, so I was aware of his position.
Previous
Police Reform