The next item on the agenda is the Act of Sederunt (Fees of Shorthand Writers in the Sheriff Court) (Amendment) 2000 (SSI 2000/145). Do we agree to take note of this statutory instrument?
We come to the Divorce, etc (Pensions) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SS1 2000/1120). We have before us a motion in Pauline's name. She asked that it be included, but only as a safeguard because of time. Do you want to move the motion, Pauline?
No. I missed the last meeting, so I apologise if my point has been made before, but I have concerns about lack of notice. I think that we have to satisfy ourselves that there is nothing in the regulations that departs from the law. However, I am happy with regard to that in this case. Has that concern been aired already?
I put your concerns on record last week but we did not discuss them. We decided that we could discuss the matter today. If you want to have a five-minute discussion, we could do so now.
I do not want to discuss the regulations, but I wanted to put on record my opinion that regulations should not be put before this committee only two days before it meets. We do not want the Executive to get the impression that it can sneak things in and get them through on the nod.
I support what Pauline says. I notice that we have in our papers an Executive memorandum that it would have been useful to have seen before.
We got it on Thursday.
Yes, but we did not have it last week. It answers the questions that needed to be asked. If we are changing matrimonial law that has been established since 1985, we need more information. I want it noted that we should have received the memorandum at the same time as the regulation.
That point is noted and we will flag up our concerns to the Executive. If further information is available, it should be supplied.
Meeting continued in private until 13:00.