Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, December 6, 2012

Official Report 271KB pdf

---

Law Reform Working Group (Report)

The committee is invited to consider the law reform working group’s report on implementation of Scottish Law Commission reports. I ask members for comments.

The issue has been knocking around for some time and I am disappointed that officials did not resolve the issue earlier. I hope that we can agree to the recommendations and that the Subordinate Legislation Committee will also agree to changes to its remit to allow the recommendations to go ahead.

We have a log jam and this, at least, is a mechanism by which some simple changes can be made. It is worth while. However, it is disappointing that it has taken so long to iron out potential difficulties that have existed in the minds of officials.

Okay. Thank you for that. Are there any other comments from members?

I support some of what Brian Adam has said. In my time on the Subordinate Legislation Committee, the issue was discussed there, as well. I welcome the suggestion that the Subordinate Legislation Committee be designated as the lead committee—it is a good suggestion.

Sub-paragraph 57(e) on page 14 of the committee paper is the recommendation:

“That it recognises that the Scottish Government, an individual MSP or a Committee of the Parliament may seek to introduce a Bill which implements the recommendations of a Scottish Law Commission report”.

We should encourage some of our MSP colleagues to look at that. Members are usually quite open to receiving suggestions for members’ bills, and members might not have thought of approaching the matter in that way. It would be useful and a good way forward to work in partnership with the Law Commission and external partners.

Yes. Thank you. The report suggests that we might take oral evidence on the law reform working group’s final report from the Scottish Law Commission and the conveners of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Justice Committee. Should we do that?

Yes—absolutely.

Unless we are to be actively involved, I do not know that we need to take any evidence. Progress needs to be made, and it can be made only if we try what is suggested. I am not convinced that hearing from the conveners of those committees—or, indeed, from the Scottish Law Commission—is appropriate. It would be more appropriate for us to talk to those who are affected after at least a pilot has been undertaken. I take Helen Eadie’s point that there is a rich vein available to members, but I think that we need to go ahead and first do what is suggested. We can then review it, perhaps using the mechanism that has been suggested. There is no need to review it and any recommendations in advance, because that would merely delay implementation.

As you know, I am keen on doing things quickly. I thank the committee for the speed with which it dealt with the parliamentary reform issue last year. We did that in about three months. It is my intention that we try to do anything that we do quickly.

I will say only that the law reform working group consists of officials from the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Law Commission. The conveners of the Justice Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee have not had any input to the group, so it may be courteous to provide them with an opportunity to come and give us their views before we move forward.

I hear what Brian Adam says, but I think that it is appropriate to do as you suggest, convener—in case there is something that we have not picked up on. The conveners and others may have points to raise. One of the concerns that are expressed in the report is that the Scottish Government may not always be able to provide support for a member who wants to produce a bill deriving from a Law Commission report. There are a lot of issues that we need to tease out, such as what support will be available for the Subordinate Legislation Committee and all the other partners who might be involved. We need to be absolutely sure that we are not overlooking something; your suggestion would be a diplomatic way of approaching the matter.

I welcome the proposal. We should be able to put it into our work programme. We should also get the conveners of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and Justice Committee along to find out what they feel about the report.

Are there any other views or comments? Brian, are you happy to invite the conveners of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Justice Committee to give their views, as they have not already been asked?

09:45

They have been asked. In a previous life, I engaged with both, so they are fully aware of the proposal. They have been engaged in the process, although I agree that there has until now perhaps been more engagement by officials. In my view, the grounds for delay are fairly spurious. We should go ahead and at least agree a pilot programme. I am not sure that bringing those conveners before the committee will add anything. It is certainly not the case that they have been ignored; they have not.

Thank you for that. We could ask the clerks to pull together the standing order changes and the mechanics of what we would have to do. That will have to be done anyway, and will take a wee bit of time—it will take until into the new year. That work could be progressing, and we could invite the conveners to come to us early in the new year. That would not cause any delay.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I see a lot of nodding heads, so shall we do it that way?

I give way.

Thank you very much.

Should we invite other conveners to write to us with comments? We will give them a fairly short deadline for getting back to us, if they do. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.