Official Report 302KB pdf
Police Pensions (Pension Sharing on Divorce) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/459)<br />Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/460)
Police Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions and Increased Benefits) (Pension Sharing) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/461)
We have before us three negative instruments, the names of which I will not read out quickly because Mark Ewing of the official report will not be able to write them down as fast as I read them.
I read the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report carefully and I think that it is worrying that a committee of the Parliament has raised doubts about the vires of the instrument and whether it is in devolved competence. I take the point, however, that that has nothing to do with us and that we are concerned only with the policy. However, should we be concerned about the comments in paragraph 11 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report, which relate to the ability of civil servants to opt for membership of the local government pension scheme? That is surely an unintended consequence. Paragraph 12 is probably more relevant.
I do not think that paragraph 11 refers to civil servants; it refers to those who are former employees of Scottish Homes.
That would be a good idea, particularly if we comment on paragraph 12 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report. If that committee has brought the issue to our attention, it is incumbent on us to acknowledge its concerns. There seems to be genuine concern.
Okay. I can clarify that paragraph 11 refers only to the civil servants who work for Scottish Homes. However, I am prepared to include a comment in the report.
The regulation seems to be fairly tightly drawn. Paragraph (1A) says that only persons specified in paragraph (1B) may be members of the scheme and paragraph (1B) mentions persons who were
It is quite tight.
I am not sure that I agree with the Subordinate Legislation Committee that it could be interpreted any other way.
Like most members, I am a lay person. I saw the paper on subordinate legislation and wanted to ask for guidance. I am happy to go along with the convener and voice our concerns in case something comes back. I was on the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee when it was proposed that Scottish Homes staff be transferred. That is what drew my attention to the matter. If the Subordinate Legislation Committee has concerns, I have concerns, and I will go with the convener's guidance on what we can do.
What are your concerns?
I am concerned that the Subordinate Legislation Committee questioned whether the issue falls within devolved competence.
That is not a matter for us; I said that at the beginning. We are taking the straightforward view that, if there is any doubt, the matter would have to be resolved through the courts. As Iain Smith said, the wording about civil servants is pretty tight. The civil servants are not named, but the instrument says that they were employed by Scottish Homes. We could comment on that, but we cannot comment on the vires issue.
I do not want to make a comment. I raised the issue only because I wanted clarification, but I will go along with the convener.
Paragraph 12 of the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report says:
That is the vires problem. The information in the instrument is very tight. It specifies those who worked for Scottish Homes on a specific date.
I am not sure that the Subordinate Legislation Committee's concerns with regard to pensions law are justified. Any member of a pension scheme can opt to have a private pension. The regulation simply states that those who used to be in the local government scheme can opt to join a scheme other than the civil service scheme. That other scheme happens to be the local government scheme. The instrument amends the local government scheme to allow that to happen. It has nothing to do with civil service issues; those people could, if they chose to, set up a private pension scheme rather than join the civil service pension scheme.
Are you saying that the vires issue does not matter?
I do not think that the vires issue is relevant. The amendment is being made to the local government scheme, not the civil service scheme. That is only a personal opinion—I am not a lawyer. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has expressed its concerns. I do not think that we need to do the same.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has flagged up the issue. I do not think that we need to do anything with it.
Our role is to decide whether, as a policy, it is right that people who used to work for Scottish Homes and were members of the local government superannuation scheme should be allowed to continue their membership of that scheme.
That is right.
Perhaps I am being a wee bit too careful, but if anything like that jumps out at me, I want clarification to protect the committee.
I want to proceed with the questions on the subordinate legislation. I do not know whether we have made anything clearer, but perhaps we have a better understanding of the issue. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has flagged up its concerns, so it can pursue the matter.
Are we agreed that the Local Government Committee has no recommendation to make on the Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/460)?
Are we agreed that the Local Government Committee has no recommendation to make on the Police Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions and Increased Benefits) (Pension Sharing) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/461)?
That concludes this part of the meeting.
Meeting continued in private until 18:19.