Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not know whether it will be an oral statement; it will come towards the end of November.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, committee. The instruments before you are the Upper Tribunal for Scotland (Transfer of Functions of the Transport Tribunal) Regulations 2024 and the Upper Tribunal for Scotland Bus Registration Appeals (Composition) Regulations 2024.These regulations are part of a package of four instruments that are closely connected and were all laid on the same date. The two affirmative instruments are important as they will continue the work to bring current tribunal functions into the Scottish tribunals structure and are essential as part of a wider package to enforce bus services improvement partnerships.

The first instrument, if passed, will transfer the devolved functions of the transport tribunal to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland. Those functions are the appeal functions that are currently exercised by the transport tribunal for certain financial penalties imposed by the traffic commissioner for Scotland on bus operators for failures to comply with certain statutory requirements set out in section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.

The regulations will also make transitional provisions to ensure that any live appeals before the transport tribunal transfer to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland. Equivalent bus enforcement powers conferred on traffic commissioners in England and Wales have an appeal route directly to the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal. Hearing appeals against service standard decisions in the Upper Tribunal for Scotland will ensure equal access to justice for any cross-border operators.

The second instrument, if passed, will make provision for the composition of the Upper Tribunal when deciding appeals against certain penalties that can be imposed against an operator of a local bus service under section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and service standard decisions made by the traffic commissioner for Scotland in connection with bus services improvement partnerships.

Members of the Upper Tribunal can be legal, judicial or ordinary members. When deciding the appeals outlined above, these regulations provide that the Upper Tribunal may consist of: a legal or judicial member of the Upper Tribunal acting alone, or two or three legal or judicial members of the Upper Tribunal, or the president of the Scottish tribunals, acting alone or with no more than two legal or judicial members.

The power to choose between the compositions that I have just described is delegated to the president of the Scottish tribunals. The president of the Scottish tribunals, Lady Wise, was consulted on both draft sets of regulations in line with the requirements of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014. Lady Wise indicated that she was content with the two instruments. There was also a public consultation that included the regulations, which closed on 27 October 2023.

I understand that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered both sets of regulations on 1 October 2024 and was content.

I want to highlight that these regulations will have no impact on individual members of the public as they relate only to the appeals rights of local bus operators and local transport authorities. I am happy to answer any questions, convener.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.