Official Report 564KB pdf
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers) 2026 (SSI 2026/208)
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers) (Amendment) 2026 (SSI 2026/252)
For our third agenda item, which is consideration of subordinate legislation, we will deal with two negative Scottish statutory instruments. I refer members to paper 2. Do members have any comments on either of the instruments? We can take comments separately or all together.
I am content with SSI 2026/252. However, I have an issue with SSI 2026/208, which aims to simplify the billing process for bailiffs and officers of the court. As indicated in the Scottish Parliament information centre report, the instrument includes a 12 to 15 per cent increase in fees. I understand that the fees are for private bailiffs and that they are most often, if not always, passed on to the members of the public who experience either eviction or debt collection measures. I do not think that either the SPICe report or the instrument mentions any rationale for the 12 to 15 per cent increase, and I have issues with that.
The Scottish Government’s public sector pay review has committed to a 9 per cent pay increase over three years, and I do not believe that officers of the court, who are usually private bailiffs, should receive a higher pay boost through the fee. I am mindful that that is SPICe’s reading and my reading, so I would like more time to ask questions of the Lord President, who has provided the instrument. I would appreciate it if we could issue an invitation to next week’s meeting, so that we can do so.
Unfortunately, Carol Mochan has not been able to join us for this item, but concerns have also been raised about a 33 per cent higher charge for the personal service of documents in remote and rural areas, and I know that she was interested in that. That is another area of concern, so we should get a little more clarity on it.
Do other members want to come in? Obviously, there are a couple of points that we will not necessarily be able to answer today.
It would be good to have a greater understanding of the issue, as Holly Bruce has rightly pointed out. The questions could be asked in relation to both the instruments, so I suggest that we defer consideration of both, because they are on the same issue. There might be questions in both areas.
In light of the questions that members have raised, it is important that we continue consideration of the instruments, perhaps at our next meeting, and that we invite the Lord President’s office to attend to inform that session, so that we have the greatest clarity.
Do members agree to defer the item and continue the conversation next week?
Members indicated agreement.
12:06
Meeting continued in private until 12:19.
Previous
Human Rights (Overview)