Justice 2 Committee, 30 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Official Report 268KB pdf

---

Constitutional Reform Bill

We move to our consideration of item 5. Once again, papers have been circulated to members. We know from the Lord Advocate that the Constitutional Reform Bill is to be the subject of a Sewel motion. The committee will recall that we prepared a report, which I think members will agree was useful, on the basis of the evidence that we took. The committee now has to determine what, if anything, it wants to do. In a sense, the matter is out of our hands. Committee members can express their views on the matter in the chamber when the debate on the Sewel motion is held. I am open to suggestions from the committee, however.

The approach that is proposed in the paper is sensible and I have no difficulty with it, especially as it is the approach that we will have to follow in any case.

My recollection is that the Lord Advocate is on standby to give evidence to the committee on 14 December. Are we content to proceed with that evidence-taking session and to take the approach proposed in the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

What contingency plans do we have? A lot seems to depend on the evidence that might be forthcoming in the written submissions that we have requested by 9 December. Some of the evidence in those submissions might merit an invitation to give oral evidence.

For example, if we were to receive a submission from a judge, lawyer or other interested party that indicated that there is considerable concern on the issue, we might not feel that it was adequate simply to have that written evidence. Will we be able to hear oral evidence on any of the written submissions that we feel merit a public airing?

Although we have the opportunity to make our position heard in the limited Sewel debate that will be held on the bill, other organisations and individuals who have a considerable vested interest in the matter are restricted to making a written submission.

That is a fair question. The one thing that we do not have control over is the timing of the Sewel motion. I understand that the desire on the part of the Executive is to bring it forward shortly. Perhaps the clerks can give us further guidance on the subject.

Essentially, the committee can consider the written evidence that it receives at its next meeting, when we are to hear evidence from the Lord Advocate. If, at that stage, the committee felt that it wanted to hear oral evidence from organisations or individuals, the clerks could discuss the matter with our colleagues in the office of the Minister for Parliamentary Business. The matter is subject to negotiation.

Might that have the effect of deferring the Sewel motion?

It might not alter the timing of the motion being brought forward, but it might alter the date of the parliamentary debate on the motion.

Right. It seems that the matter is partly outwith and partly within the committee's control. I can offer no comment other than to say that we will have to play it by ear. Let us see what evidence comes in and hear what the Lord Advocate has to say. As our clerk has said, if the committee has serious concerns, the Executive will listen sympathetically to them in so far as it can in respect of the timing of the debate on the Sewel motion. Subject to that caveat, is the committee content to proceed as outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank all members for attending today's meeting and remind everyone that our next meeting will be held on 14 December. We have a little break between now and then.

Does that mean that we are not having a meeting next week?

That is another way of saying it. The further good news for the committee is that we have organised some festive fare for 14 December.

Santa is coming early.

I hasten to say that it is at the expense of the convener.

He has been already.

I bring the meeting to a close.

Meeting closed at 16:31.