Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Official Report 561KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Premises Licence (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/49)

Agenda item 3 is further consideration of a negative Scottish statutory instrument. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk.

Members will recall that, when we considered the regulations at our meeting on 6 March, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government for clarification in relation to the point that was raised. As members will have seen, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has responded, and his response is included as part of paper 3.

Do members have any comments? I note that the cabinet secretary has clarified the point that we raised.

Indeed, convener. It is fine.

Thank you. Does the committee therefore agree that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sheriff Court Fees Order 2018 (SSI 2018/81)

---

Sheriff Appeal Court Fees Order 2018 (SSI 2018/82)

---

Court of Session etc Fees Order 2018 (SSI 2018/83)

---

High Court of Justiciary Fees Order 2018 (SSI 2018/84)

---

Justice of the Peace Court Fees (Scotland) Order 2018 (SSI 2018/85)

---

Adults with Incapacity (Public Guardian’s Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/86)

Agenda item 4 is consideration of six negative instruments. I refer members to paper 4, which is a note by the clerk. Do members have any comments? I call Liam Kerr.

You have done it again, convener.

I am sorry—I have done it again. I call Liam McArthur.

I am going to start wearing my name badge. [Laughter.]

My comment is not on anything overly substantive. In the Government’s explanation of the instruments, there is a bit of detail in paragraph 4 about some aspects of the provisions that apply in each instance. In paragraphs 5 and 6, it goes on to talk about the consultation, and paragraph 6 fairly boldly states:

“22 responses were received and almost all stated their opposition to increasing court fees or the charging of court fees at all.”

If we take the trouble—I have done so, as you would expect, convener—to look at the details in the Scottish Government’s publication on the website, we see that a number of changes were made as a result of the consultation responses, including

“Enhancements to the means-related exemptions”,

“Special provision for victims of domestic abuse”

and

“A reduction to the permission to appeal fee”.

It would be helpful if, when putting such papers together, the Government made explicit, in broad terms, the changes that were made on the back of the consultation instead of including them elsewhere. Paragraph 4 is fairly broad, and although it seems to touch on the changes, it does not make explicit that they were made as a result of the consultation. It then goes on to mention a consultation that, to the casual observer, looks like a tick-box exercise.

I would make the same point. We have no idea who the 22 responses were from or exactly what was said, yet it is clear that they have been taken on board. What you suggest would be very helpful.

There are probably still people who are concerned about aspects of the instruments, but it would be in the Government’s interest as well as in the interests of transparency more generally to make a more direct link between the consultation process and the changes that were implemented. That would reassure us that the Government was not just going through an academic exercise.

Absolutely. Some of the concerns have clearly been taken on board.

Following on from what Liam McArthur has pointed out, I would like two points to be clarified, but I would start my remarks by making the general observation that the impact of this is significant. Fees increased by an average of 24 per cent in 2016, and this proposal adds 2.3 per cent this year and 2 per cent next year. I recognise the Government’s stated aim of ensuring that court fees more fully reflect the costs of the processes that are involved, but I would observe that that is a change in philosophy. There is a point of view that the court service should be a civic institution and therefore accessible to all, whereas this proposal changes it to one that people pay to access.

I seek clarification on two points. First, either this is a policy decision to make sure that fees reflect the true court costs or it is about keeping them in line with inflation. I would like the Government to clarify the nature of the increase. Payroll costs, which I would guess form the largest part of the cost base, will increase by about 1 per cent. Will the Government clarify why 2 per cent is required?

Secondly, I note from the equality impact assessment that no particular numbers are involved. I also note that a number of exemptions are being put in place, but I would be interested to know the Government’s assessment of the impact on people’s ability to bring actions to court. What might the increase in costs do to their ability to do that?

I note from the papers that

“A final equality impact assessment was undertaken as was a business and regulatory impact assessment.”

Do you want more detail than that?

Yes. It does not appear—certainly from my reading—that any particular numbers have been cited.

When there have been court fee increases in the past, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland have not been slow in sending in a separate submission if they have any particular concerns. Perhaps a little more detail about the impact assessment might give the committee more reassurance.

Is the committee content that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments, other than the points that we have just raised?

Members indicated agreement.

We will send a letter just for future reference.