Official Report 714KB pdf
Sheriff Court Fees Order 2024 (SSI 2024/235)
Sheriff Appeal Court Fees Order 2024 (SSI 2024/236)
High Court of Justiciary Fees Order 2024 (SSI 2024/237)
Court of Session etc Fees Order 2024 (SSI 2024/238)
Justice of the Peace Court Fees (Scotland) Order 2024 (SSI 2024/239)
Adults with Incapacity (Public Guardian’s Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/240)
Good morning. I thank Maggie Chapman for convening the first part of the meeting. I am attending remotely as I am out of the country. I ask members to bear with me just in case there is any lag or there are any delays.
Our fourth agenda item is consideration of six negative Scottish statutory instruments. I refer members to paper 3. I welcome to the meeting Siobhian Brown, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. She is accompanied by her supporting officials: Walter Drummond-Murray, who is the head of civil courts and inquiries at the justice directorate; and Emma Thomson, who is a solicitor with the Scottish Government legal directorate, for courts, tribunals, inquiries and access to justice. I ask the minister to speak to the instruments.
Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that courts are funded to deliver a civil justice system that is accessible, affordable and provides a high-quality service to those who have cause to use it. Beyond that overriding objective, the Scottish Government believes that the fees that are charged to court users should recover the cost to public funds of providing those services when that can be done while protecting access to justice. That means that those who make use of the services of the courts should meet, or contribute towards, the associated cost to the public purse, when they can afford to do so.
A generous system of legal aid and court fee exemptions is the most important means by which access to justice is protected. Over recent years, we have enhanced such protections. For example, people who apply for domestic abuse interdicts or exclusion orders are automatically exempt from paying court fees, and, in 2022, people with environmental cases within the meaning of the Aarhus convention were exempted from paying court fees in the Court of Session. I want to go further in the future, when resources allow.
The instruments that are before the committee establish statutory fee-charging regimes, which the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service administers, so the Scottish Government works very closely with the SCTS on its fees policy. Court fees have generally been reviewed every three years, with the latest full round being implemented in 2022. We do not increase fees annually in line with inflation, but we need to increase them when it is necessary to reflect increased costs. That is why the SSIs are before the committee today.
The wider context of pressure on public finances that has been brought about by significant reductions to the funding that Scotland receives from the UK Government, as well as the inflationary pressures that we are all well aware of, means that it is unsustainable not to consider court fees increasing. As a result of high inflation and increased costs falling on the SCTS, the rate of recovery dropped significantly to 57 per cent in 2023-24.
In my letter to the committee, I set out reasons why the SSIs are necessary and the potential impact on the SCTS should it not receive the additional funding that is being sought through court fees. The expansion of the civil online system in the sheriff court is one example of something that might have to be curtailed, essential improvements to the Office of the Public Guardian’s systems is another, and work to develop a trauma-informed domestic abuse court is a third. Beyond the examples that I mentioned in my letter, there is simply the risk of increasing delays, which would be to the detriment of all those involved in the court system, as a result of a shortfall in projected income of about £4 million per year.
We cannot ignore the fact that we face financial challenges, and we have sought to balance those challenges against maintaining a robust £141.3 million fund for legal aid and court fee exemptions to protect people who could not otherwise afford access to justice.
I urge the committee to pass the SSIs to ensure that courts get the increased fees that they need to reflect inflationary rises and can continue their work in providing justice to those who seek it.
Thank you. We move to questions on the instruments. Members should indicate if they wish to come in.
Minister, court exemptions were discussed last week. Are you likely to review them?
Yes. I want to review them in the future because of inflationary pressures. We cannot address that issue at the moment, but we will in the future.
You mentioned the impact that there will be if we do not pass the SSIs. Will you expand on that?
As I set out in my letter to the committee last week, the expansion of the civil online system in the sheriff court is one example of something that might have to be curtailed, essential improvements to the Office of the Public Guardian’s systems is another, and work to develop a trauma-informed domestic abuse court is a third. Beyond the examples that I mentioned in my letter, there is simply the risk of increasing delays, which would be to the detriment of all those involved in the court system, but it would be up to the SCTS to decide where to make cuts if it did not get the £4 million a year.
Thank you.
Good morning, minister, and thank you for the letter that you sent last week and for your statement this morning. I will ask a couple of questions to delve into the costs in a bit more detail. You mentioned in your statement the cost recovery figure falling to 57 per cent. The most recent figure that I could find was for 2017, when cost recovery was 87 per cent. It seems to me that more than just inflation is going on. Can you say a bit more about that change?
We know with the inflation over the past couple of years that that figure has gone to 57 per cent in the past year. I do not know the history going back to the figure that you mention, but I will bring in Walter Drummond-Murray, because he will know the history and be able to speak to that.
That figure was provided by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which follows its methodology for analysing costs to the civil justice system. Specific examples are pay, most obviously, and the inflationary pressures that we are all aware of on energy, building maintenance and so on. The significant investment in digital also explains it, and that is really as much as I can say. It is the SCTS’s responsibility to provide a figure, and that is the one that it provided for the most recent year.
You talk about pay and inflation being the assumed pressures, given the figure that you have from the SCTS. I appreciate that it is the SCTS’s figure and its methodology. In the Scottish court fees 2024-25 consultation document, there is an analysis of inflationary pressures, and other than one year when the fee increase was more than 10 per cent, all the increases are under 10 per cent. What is the rationale for the 20 per cent increase for some court fees?
I can answer that. Although the fee increases are more than in previous years, they should be seen in the context of the soaring inflation that we have experienced over the past few years, and the increased associated costs, which Walter mentioned. In 2021, there was no fee increase due to the pandemic; in 2022 and 2023, the increase was 3 per cent; and in 2024, it was 2 per cent.
There are no plans for further increases until 1 April 2026. The total increases are considered over a five-year period, which would be in line with the post-pandemic inflation as measured by the consumer prices index. One other thing to highlight is that the fees that have been selected for the higher percentage increase were chosen because they are lower in nominal terms, thus minimising any impact to access to justice. Specific examples, which I mentioned in my letter to the committee last week, are fees for the sheriff court caveat, which are proposed to rise from £48 to £58, and the fee for lodging a motion, which is proposed to rise from £54 to £65.
I appreciate what you say, but at no point in the past three years has inflation approached 20 per cent. Even if the fees are lower in absolute terms, it is a pretty steep increase. I do not see evidence for that increase. The consultation document talks about CPI being 5.4 per cent last year and 0.6 per cent this year, and the retail prices index being 8.1 per cent last year and 1.2 per cent this year—those are the Scottish Government’s figures in its consultation document. Given that we have already had a 2 per cent rise this year, I do not see how we can justify a 20 per cent in-year increase.
I will bring in Walter in a moment on inflation rates, because he will be able to go over the history of the past five years. The money to fund the court system is needed due to inflationary pressures over the past couple of years. Access for the most vulnerable who need justice is covered by the exemptions and by legal aid. When you seek litigation, the legal fees are usually a lot higher than the court fees. For example, solicitors’ rates in Scotland, depending on the type of work and the experience, start at £125 per hour and go up to anything over £300 per hour.
I just want to make the point that you are right that inflation at any point over the past couple of years has been around 10 per cent, but looked at over three or four years, you quickly get to around 20 per cent, which is the overall effect of the order. Although some fees have gone up by 10 per cent and some have gone up by another 10 per cent on top of that, the average is probably around 13 to 14 per cent, and that is what we are trying to achieve. It is just a reflection of inflation but over a longer period than the past 18 months.
11:45
I have a final question—well, maybe it is a statement rather than a question. Last week, we were told by people who support citizens who are seeking justice that quite a lot of them fall through the cracks of legal aid. You said that, if people are struggling, they will be covered by legal aid, but they are often not covered by legal aid, either because the professionals do not exist in areas where they are needed or because people need to travel to find that legal aid support. Therefore, I am sorry, but I simply do not agree that legal aid provides the cushion that you have claimed that it does, given how patchy access to legal aid is across Scotland.
I would like to respond to that point. That issue is one that has been raised. Legal aid is demand led. Last year, it had a budget of more than £141 million. If, during the course of a year, the level of legal aid goes over the budgeted level because of demand, the Scottish Government will have to pay for that.
I know that the Scottish Legal Aid Board is currently looking geographically at the areas that need legal aid and at how we can solve that. We are working with SLAB and the legal profession on how we can improve access to justice through legal aid.
Okay. I will leave it there.
We move on to questions from Elena Whitham.
Good morning. I have a few questions. Do you have any analysis of or statistics on what proportion of court fee income is paid for by banks, the insurance industry or similar large bodies, and what proportion is paid for by individuals? Do you have any such information?
No. SCTS does not track who is litigating in a form that would allow us to provide those specific statistics. However, we can say that a significant proportion of the litigation is conducted by large organisations from the public and private sectors. Specifically, the insurance industry is a major litigant in the field of personal injury. Thanks to qualified one-way costs shifting, it meets the expenses of both the parties in the large majority of cases.
Thank you for that answer. Do you know what the average cost to an individual of a court fee is?
I do not have that exact price at the moment. It would be useful to have the data that allows for the fee to be broken down in that form, but the cases differ depending on how much of the court’s time is used, so it is unique to each individual case. Many cases will settle without a hearing. Accordingly, the fee might be low. However, some cases might involve lengthy hearings in the Court of Session and multiple motions, which might make them more expensive. Therefore, it is very difficult to pinpoint an average cost.
If we cannot pinpoint an average cost for that, is there a comparison that we can make with our neighbours in the rest of the United Kingdom? How do our fees compare with those in the rest of the UK?
I will bring in Walter Drummond-Murray on that, but it is my understanding that our court fees are lower than those in England and Wales. I note that, in England and Wales, the fee for a divorce is £593, but, in Scotland, it is only £150. That is a comparison for one of the fees.
Walter, do you have any further information?
I simply add that it is difficult to make such comparisons because of the different legal systems. The system in England and Wales is more front loaded, with a higher initial fee, but then there are lower fees throughout the course of a case.
However, it is fair to say that the fees in England and Wales are higher on average, as the minister indicated with her example. In particular, their system is more predicated on the value of the claim. A case involving a claim of £100,000 would have a £5,000 fee, which would be much higher than the fee that would normally be incurred here, unless it was a case that involved extremely complex hearings.
Thank you for that.
Finally, minister, in the letter to the committee, you outline how the system is created with fairness baked into it, as far as possible, to allow people access. I take on board Ms Chapman’s comments about access to legal aid, and you have set out the impact on the court service if the instruments are annulled, but could we look beyond that, at the associated tribunals and chambers, where there are generally no fees for the public to attend? What impact would annulment have on those settings, given that we are looking for people to have access to justice when it comes to housing, and to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, for example? What could the consequences be for people?
As I said previously, it would be up to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to determine that, if the funding of £4 million a year was not raised on its behalf. As I set out in my letter to the committee, the expansion of the civil online service in the sheriff court is one example that it has been mentioned might have to be curtailed. Beyond all the examples that I have mentioned today and in my letter, there is simply a risk of delay and detriment to the court system.
Thank you. We have no indication of other members wishing to ask a question. Therefore, that completes our evidence taking on the SSIs, and we will now move on to the various motions to annul the instruments. Once again, I will pace myself and take my time, because I am taking part remotely today and I want to ensure that you can clearly understand everything that I am saying. I thank members for their patience.
The next agenda item is to consider a motion to annul SSI 2024/235, the Sheriff Court Fees Order 2024. A motion to annul has been lodged in the name of Maggie Chapman. Having had the opportunity to question the minister on the SSI, I invite the committee to dispose of the motion to annul.
I invite Maggie Chapman to move motion S6M-14789, in her name, and to make any brief additional comments that she wishes to make.
Thanks, convener. I thank the minister for her comments.
My comments cover all the motions, so I will say all this only once, you will be pleased to know. I am grateful to the minister and the Scottish Government for responding to the concerns that we have heard and discussed both this morning and at previous meetings. For me, and for many in the sector who provide advice and advocacy as well as legal support, the response is not sufficient to allay those concerns. That is why I am moving my motions this morning.
There are, in my view, four areas of significant difficulty. The first is the assumption that full cost recovery is a necessary goal to which we should aspire. On the contrary, many experts and legal scholars, as well as social justice advocates, believe it to be deeply problematic. Justice is a matter of public and common good—a benefit to the whole society, not just to the participants of a particular case. If justice is presented as a consumer luxury—one that only the privileged can choose to indulge in—all our communities will be harmed, our trust in the rule of law will be threatened and our human rights will no longer be universal. That is recognised in the context of many tribunals, including following the Unison case in employment tribunals. That principle should, as the Human Rights Consortium Scotland suggests, also be applied to human rights, equality law and public interest cases—situations in which the very fundamentals of this committee’s work are centrally concerned.
The second problem with the orders is the lack of justification for such steep hikes in fees—10 per cent to 20 per cent—in addition to the regular annual increases. Costs, including energy, have increased, as the minister has noted, but wages have not risen in line with inflation, so the burden falls more heavily on struggling individuals and families than it does on institutions. As the Human Rights Consortium Scotland has highlighted, the rises will disproportionately impact those who are already marginalised—those who, without litigation, are unable to obtain their basic human rights, including their rights to an acceptable standard of living, to privacy and family life, to freedom from discrimination, to independent living and to inclusive education. Some of those people, but not all, will be exempt from fees, and some will be eligible for legal aid but, again, not all. The shortage of legal aid solicitors means that even those who are eligible may need to pay privately for legal assistance or to bring cases in person, with the latter course representing a significant cause of delay in and expense to the court system.
The third difficulty is that we have not received enough clarity from the Scottish Government about the proportion of the overall SCTS budget that is expected to be dependent on the fee increases. We have seen a list of projects that the minister tells us may be under threat, but no detailed costings or indication of priorities. Evidence suggests that higher fees deter claimants from embarking on litigation in the first place, so we cannot be confident of the overall financial effects of such a dramatic rise. I also suggest that, although many of the initiatives are laudable and some, such as the remote provision of evidence by police and expert witnesses, will benefit other bodies and individuals, few of them are more important than the maintenance of access to justice in itself.
My fourth and final concern is about the wider access to justice barriers that we see in Scotland today. That broader context represents my primary concern. The Human Rights Consortium says:
“the Minister’s letter misses the mark by not engaging with the underlying crisis in civil legal aid that many people are facing today.”
As I mentioned, that crisis is not only about eligibility but about accessibility. It is of little use to know that you qualify for legal aid if it is impossible for you to find and consult a legal aid solicitor. The fact that legal aid advice and representation are so prohibitively expensive should not be an excuse for raising court fees; it should be an incentive to make real and overdue change.
The Scottish Government’s failure to comply with its Aarhus commitments, its failure to include legal aid reform in the current programme for government and its failure to reverse the devastating cuts to the early resolution and advice programme—ERAP—stream 2 funding must all, along with the fees instruments that we are considering today, be matters of deep disquiet to the committee. I invite us to act upon those justified concerns and I urge colleagues to vote with me on the annulment of the instruments.
I move,
That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Sheriff Court Fees Order 2024 (SSI 2024/235) be annulled.
Thank you, Maggie. I invite any other members, followed by the minister, to make any further brief remarks that they wish to make.
Unfortunately, I was absent from the committee when we took evidence on these issues. However, obviously, I have read some of the evidence. There is much in the arguments that Maggie Chapman has made that is important and needs to be put on the record and explored, particularly the point about wider access to justice. I hope that the Government will reflect on those points and particularly the one about what it is fair to call a crisis in legal services. That is particularly the case with access to lawyers in criminal defence trials and the availability of lawyers through legal aid. I have had a number of constituency issues relating to the pursuers panel and pursuing solicitors who are at fault.
There is a range of issues that need to be looked at in the round, and I hope that the Government will take that on board. I have a degree of sympathy with Ms Chapman’s approach, but I am concerned about what would happen to the court system if we annul the instruments. I appreciate the costs that are involved and the arguments that have been made. I would be much more comfortable if the minister would say, in summing up, what further action she intends to take as a result of this discussion. However, I share the concerns that annulling the instruments might have a knock-on impact.
Thank you. Ms Chapman, having heard from the minister about the impact if we were to annul the SSIs, have you taken into consideration the impact on the courts, and particularly on the tribunals service, if your motions were successful?
Convener, that is a direct question to me. Do you want me to answer?
Yes, please.
Okay.
I mentioned your name, but obviously you did not pick that up.
12:00
I am sorry—I thought that we were just making contributions for or against the motion.
As I said in my remarks, I hear the minister’s concerns and have heard what she said about the impacts, but there is actually no detail on any of that. We know that, for the last year for which we have figures, civil court running costs were £40 million, and the minister has mentioned a £4 million value for the fees. We have no information of what the SCTS will do differently if the motions are not passed and these increases do not go through. Despite having asked the minister in a letter previously, we do not know what the exact impact will be. We have heard general words about the fact that there will be an impact, but there has been no quantification of that at all either in this morning’s meeting or in writing previously.
I associate myself with Paul O’Kane’s comments about the fact that access to legal services is vitally important to everyone. We have been speaking about human rights this morning. We need to ensure that people can access legal services when they need to. I share the concerns about the annulment as it is presented in the motion. That is not because I do not believe that the matter should be looked into. It absolutely should be looked into.
I seek reassurance from the minister with regard to the review of legal fees, which she touched on briefly in her opening statement. The committee could explore that or the Scottish Government could pursue it directly on the back of what we have discussed today. It would be helpful if the minister could address that when she sums up. I sympathise with the points that have been raised about ensuring that people can get access to justice support when they need it.
Like my colleagues, I have some sympathy with the motions that Maggie Chapman has lodged. We all want a system that has fairness baked into it and that provides access across the board. As a former Women’s Aid worker, I have seen time and again the issues that women face in trying to access justice. We have heard from the minister about the fact that we have already dealt with some exemptions in that area, which were very welcome.
I take on board Ms Chapman’s comments about the fact that we do not have a level of detail about where the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service would seek to make changes in relation to the difference of £4 million, but £4 million will make a difference if we do not proceed with the instruments that the minister has lodged. I sympathise with Ms Chapman’s points, but the committee has been clear about seeking more information in the future about how we deal with access to legal aid and justice. I hope that that information will come forward in future evidence sessions.
There are no further requests to speak, so I invite the minister to respond.
I urge committee members to support these SSIs to fund the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Budgetary pressures mean that we cannot ignore the impact of inflation over the past couple of years.
I take on board the points that members have made, and I will come to the matter of legal aid, but access to justice is protected by legal aid and court fees exemptions. As we know, court fees are generally a very small part of the cost of a legal action. Legal advice is far more expensive and a bigger issue.
The Scottish Government totally acknowledges the importance of access to justice and the reform of the legal aid system. The Scottish Government has taken significant steps to assist legal aid providers, which has led to an increase in legal aid fees of 25 per cent since 2019.
As I said previously to Maggie Chapman, the number of legal aid solicitors can fluctuate for a variety of reasons, and the issue of solicitor availability is being explored by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis that will look in detail at legal aid activity at geographical level and subject matter level. I will continue to work with the legal profession and others to identify measures to improve Scotland’s legal aid system.
If the instruments are agreed to today, as we move forward to the next consultation in 2026, I would be happy to commit to a further consultation that would have the public’s interests at heart as part of the next fees review.
I invite Maggie Chapman to respond and to indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw motion S6M-14789.
I will not repeat what I said, but I flag to colleagues that the main reason given for the changes is inflationary pressures. We have heard, in response to questions earlier, that the Government is looking for an average increase of about 13 per cent in court fees. However, let us not forget that, as the minister outlined, there have already been increases—3 per cent in 2022, 3 per cent in 2023 and 2 per cent this year in April—so it is not as if it is starting from 0 per cent. We need to take that into consideration.
On that basis, the increases are out of line with what is appropriate—never mind my earlier point that I do not believe that full-cost recovery in the justice system is an appropriate approach. Justice should be universally available and not just for those with the ability to pay. I press my motion.
The question is, that motion S6M-14789, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Against
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
Was my vote not counted?
I am not sure that we could see your hand on the screen, Karen.
I apologise. It was out of shot.
For the next votes, put your hand closer to your face.
Apologies—that was the first hiccup.
We move to agenda item 6, which is consideration of motion S6M-14790. A motion to annul has been lodged by Maggie Chapman. I invite Maggie Chapman to move the motion and to make any brief additional comments that she wishes to make.
I will not say anything further.
Motion moved,
That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Sheriff Appeal Court Fees Order 2024 (SSI 2024/236) be annulled.—[Maggie Chapman]
I invite any other member present to make any brief remarks that they wish to make.
No member has any comments to make. Minister, do you wish to make any remarks?
I have no further comments to make.
The question is, that motion S6M-14790, in the name of Maggie Chapman, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Against
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
Agenda item 7 is consideration of motion S6M-14791. A motion to annul has been lodged by Maggie Chapman.
Motion moved,
That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the High Court of Justiciary Fees Order 2024 (SSI 2024/237) be annulled.—[Maggie Chapman]
The question is, that motion S6M-14791, in the name of Maggie Chapman, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Against
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
Agenda item 8 is consideration of motion S6M-14792. A motion to annul has been lodged by Maggie Chapman.
Motion moved,
That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Court of Session etc. Fees Order 2024 (SSI 2024/238) be annulled.—[Maggie Chapman]
The question is, that motion S6M-14792, in the name of Maggie Chapman, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Against
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
12:15
Agenda item 9 is consideration of motion S6M-14793. A motion to annul has been lodged by Maggie Chapman.
Motion moved,
That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Justice of the Peace Court Fees (Scotland) Order 2024 (SSI 2024/239) be annulled.—[Maggie Chapman]
The question is, that motion S6M-14793, in the name of Maggie Chapman, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Against
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
Agenda item 10 is consideration of motion S6M-14794. A motion to annul has been lodged by Maggie Chapman.
Motion moved,
That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Adults with Incapacity (Public Guardian’s Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 (SSI 2024/240) be annulled.—[Maggie Chapman]
The question is, that motion S6M-14794, in the name of Maggie Chapman, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Against
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Motion disagreed to.
That concludes our deliberation on the SSIs. I thank the minister and her officials for their attendance.
12:19 Meeting continued in private until 12:32.Previous
Human Rights (Scotland) Bill