 I welcome everyone to the 15th meeting of the Justice Committee in 2014. I can say everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with the broadcasting system even when they're switched to silent. No apologies have been received, item 1. I invite the committee to create and consider item 4 in its work programme in private. Are we agreed? Thank you. Item 2, sport and legislation. It's consideration of one affirmative instrument, the draft judicial pensions and retirement act 1993, part time sheriff, the best appendery, manages, straight and justice of peace, order 2014. I welcome the meeting with Alexander Cunningham, Minister of Community Safety and Legal Affairs and Scottish Government officials, Jan Marshall, Deputy Director of Civil Law and Legal Systems Division and Luke McBratney, Solicitor, Constitutional and Civil Law branch and minister, you will be giving evidence in advance of this instrument and I understand you wish to make an opening statement. Thank you very much. It will be fairly brief because this is not a huge long statutory instrument. The order is to provide for equal treatment in relation to retirement and the opportunity to work in retirement for part time sheriffs, dependry magistrates and justices of the peace. It will make the same provision for these office holders as already exists for other judicial office holders. The order is not about a general increase in retirement age which continues to be 70 across the whole of the judiciary. It is to provide equal treatment across salaried, permanent and fee paid or non paid members of the judiciary. If approved by the Parliament, the order will do two things. First, it will remove the current provisions that prevent part time sheriffs, part time dependry magistrates and justices of the peace from being reappointed if their five year term of appointment ends while they are 69. This will address an anomaly in the current law which effectively requires some part time sheriffs, part time sheriffs, dependry magistrates and justices to retire at 69 rather than 70. Secondly, it will enable part time sheriffs, dependry magistrates and justices to sit after leaving office at the request of a sheriff principal. This will enable the courts to take advantage of the skills and experience of retired part time sheriffs, dependry magistrates and justices where the business needs of the sheriffdom make this appropriate. It will also enable Scottish ministers in limited circumstances to authorise a continuation in office up until the age of 75. That's a very brief overview of the order and its context and I'm happy to answer any questions as are my officials. My question is perhaps not directly related to that instrument but to the clarification to the government's position on the Philips of the O'Brien decision. Are the government still... Can you just tell us what that is first? Well, it's the decision on equal treatment for judges. The decision that the Supreme Court said that the recorder in England was entitled to repay the pension in the same way as a full time judge. What's the government's position on that in terms of its impact on Scotland present time? Well, this order is the government's response to that. We saw that judgment and decided that we would need to ensure that our systems were in line as well with that judgment. In a sense, the reason we're here is that judgment. Are we able to clarify what the impact on the public purse is of this change then? There isn't expected to be much of an effect. Our view is that it will be cost-neutral. Finally, does it have any impact at all in terms of the proposals that we're considering under the court reform? There is some interplay that I suppose can be seen. Section 12 of the bill contains provision which will replace some amendments made by this order, so obviously we have to deal with it in the bill. When the bill is brought into force, the re-employment of former part-time sheriffs will take place under section 12 of the bill rather than the 1971 act, which is what was their original founding legislation. The Office of Stupendry Magistrate will be abolished by section 18 of the bill and the office holders will, unless they decline appointment, be reappointed as somebody's sheriff. We're dealing with a situation, which is a historic situation. If the bill becomes law, that law will make certain changes to the historic situation, but we still need to address the anomaly at the moment because the question is when that bill comes into force. My question is also about the overlap question. Add a supplementary to Mr Campbell's question. He asked about the implications of the O'Brien judgment and it does have wider implications beyond what we're doing in this instrument for fee-paid judiciary and the pension of fee-paid judiciary, and that will have financial implications for the Government, but it's not relevant specifically to this instrument. My question was a similar line, I suppose, that the schedule 4 amended the 1993 act and now the order does that instead. I wonder if there's any particular reason why the order had to come in now. Would there be a problem with some of this being left to the act? Is there a time frame that needs to be implemented by some of those provisions to come in now? There's no immediate requirement to do this, but the Government's position is that it should be done as quickly as possible. That's why the bill on introduction contains equivalent provision. That provision will no longer be needed because of some of the changes being made by this order. John Pentland, you'll be glad, too, doesn't apply to politicians, young though you are. I noticed from the paper that it was an informal consultation that was carried out with the Lord President's officers, sheriffs and others who were involved here. I asked the particular reason why it was informal, and it wasn't a public consultation. In general, we would be able to know what was said. In general terms, if you're going to launch a full-scale public consultation, that's not a cost-neutral exercise, that does cost money. There are some things that are of such narrow interest and applicability that it's considered quite appropriate to consult but to do so not in the very formal way that other things are done. As long as we ensure that all relevant stakeholders are spoken to informally, we feel that the consultation that is done by that method is as valid as putting it out to a public consultation. In any public consultation, the likelihood is that it would be that same group of stakeholders that would respond. It's difficult to see how that could be of much interest to anybody beyond that narrow circle of stakeholders. Occasionally informal consultations such as that take place for that reason. Would a transcript or a report or anything be available for the general public? I'm not sure what record is. The fact that it isn't a formal consultation means that there isn't a formal output, but the process of undertaking the informal consultation ensures that all stakeholders are sighted on that. The nature of that is such that it is highly unlikely that anybody is going to be opposing it. The informal consultation is more about advising people that we are proceeding with it. The smaller issues contained within that small group of people around that 69-70-year-old marker, the ones who themselves will be the most concerned. I think that John was perhaps asking, did any of any problems with it, notwithstanding that it was informal, did any of these groups have any problems with this? No. There are no issues with it. The instrument is being made in consequence of the O'Brien judgment, as Mr Campbell said. We are doing it as a legal requirement. What the instrument does is to equalise retirement ages across the whole of the judiciary, so we took soundings from those who have an interest in it. You understand that, convener, but sometimes when you see informal consultations like decisions getting made behind closed doors, I'm quite glad to accept the issue. He's accepting it. It's content. I think that the difficulty is if you launch a formal consultation. That has cost implications, and it's difficult to see how anybody other than the people directly involved who have actually been informed and consulted would be bothered to respond. We're also content now, Donna. You're very content. It must be the sunshine, Margaret. Just to welcome the instrument minister, I think that it does end some anomalies, as you pointed out. It gives consistency. Importantly, at the age of 70, it does allow the re-employment of very talented people should it be necessary to facilitate the disposal of court business. I think that this is an excellent instrument that we welcome. There we are. I'll now move on to item 3. That ends the questions, and I'll move on to the formal debate to approve the instrument that was considered on the previous item. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S4M-9957 that the Justice Committee recommends that the draft judicial pensions for retirement 1993 part time sheriff's defendry magistrate and justice of the peace order 2014 be approved. You've inadvertently promoted me, and I wouldn't want that to stay on the record. I'll be to be confirmed. In my capacity as Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, I move that the committee recommends that the judicial pensions and retirement act 1993 part time sheriff's defendry magistrate and justice of the peace order 2014 be approved. I hope that I haven't blighted your prospects there, because a recommendation from me doesn't always help people. Do any members wish to speak in the debate in the motion? No. The question is that motion S4M-9957 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. As members are aware, we require to report on all the affirmative instruments, so you are therefore content to delegate authority for me to sign off this report. Thank you very much. We now move into private session. It's previously agreed. Thank you, Minister.