Justice 1 Committee, 12 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Official Report 331KB pdf

---

Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Proposed Bill)

Good morning, everyone. I wish you all a happy new year and welcome you to the first meeting in 2005 of the Justice 1 Committee.

Amazingly, I have only one apology. I know that Marlyn Glen is stuck in Dundee, but she might get here eventually. Otherwise, we are all here and should shortly be joined by Professor Gane, our adviser on the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, although he might also have difficulty getting here because of the weather.

I welcome Karen Whitefield MSP and David Cullum, who is from the non-Executive bills unit. They will be taking part in today's proceedings. I refer members to the note prepared by the clerk on the proposal for a member's bill to prohibit large retail premises from trading on Christmas day and new year's day. I emphasise that today we are considering not the content of the bill but the reasons why Karen Whitefield is not going to further consultation. This morning, members have the opportunity to ask questions and decide whether they are satisfied with Karen Whitefield's statement about why she is not going to consultation on her bill.

Before we ask Karen Whitefield to address the committee, can we lay down a marker? I realise that we are not considering the principles of the bill today. However, I certainly do not think that it would be appropriate for this committee to do that because Karen Whitefield has consulted largely with trading organisations; therefore, the appropriate committee would be the Enterprise and Culture Committee, the Local Government and Transport Committee or, perhaps, the Communities Committee. As a point of order, I made that point at our previous meeting, but it was not noted. Although I am happy to hear Karen Whitefield's statement, it is important that we set down that marker. The Justice 1 Committee has a very heavy workload and I note that the Enterprise and Culture Committee is not even meeting this week. On that point alone, it seems to me quite outrageous that we should be asked to do this additional and inappropriate piece of work.

I am not going to ask Karen Whitefield to respond to that point, because the issue is a matter not for her but for the Parliamentary Bureau, which decided that the proposal had to come to a justice committee, although I am not sure why it has come to the Justice 1 Committee. This is only a short item so we thought that we could fit it into the agenda. Karen Whitefield can comment if she wants to, but it is really a matter for the bureau.

I have a brief question. In the opinion of NEBU, is the consultation that Karen Whitefield is undertaking substantially that which would have been undertaken in structure, form and timetabling if it had been undertaken under the new standing orders?

I will start and then David Cullum can comment for NEBU. I drew up the consultation with advice from NEBU and my understanding is that the unit was very much aware of the forthcoming proposed changes to members' bills that might be implemented by the Parliament. My consultation document has been widely circulated to MSPs, local authorities and organisations that would be affected by the legislation, including companies and trade unions. As a result, the consultation should meet the requirements of the new procedures.

I would add only that the bill conforms to what the Procedures Committee anticipated. For the committee's information, the Procedures Committee was codifying an informal procedure that we were following in any event. We have really continued with what was being proposed before the Procedures Committee reported.

I have another simple little question that slipstreams behind Margaret Mitchell's point. Did you consider sending—or have you now sent—a request for feedback to the Law Society of Scotland, given that it is not on the list of consultees?

If an organisation is not on the list, I have not sent a copy of the consultation document to it. The Law Society has not asked for a copy, although it could have done so because there has been considerable press coverage of the proposal. However, if Mr Stevenson would like me to forward a copy to the Law Society for its consideration, I would be more than happy to do so.

As the matter of the proposed bill's referral to one of the justice committees has been raised, I should also point out that, in terms of Executive responsibility, the decisions about and the ambit of any such bill would lie within the justice portfolio. It is for the Parliamentary Bureau to decide which committee a bill comes to and the bureau decided that the proposed bill should come to one of the justice committees.

As a former member of one of the justice committees, I suggest that we need to remember that those committees consider not only criminal justice matters but the wider justice agenda. Given that that can relate to home affairs matters, I suggest that that is why the bill falls within the remit of the Minister for Justice. Although I believe that it is appropriate that the proposed bill should be dealt with by one of the justice committees, I appreciate and take on board the views of some members of the committee. Ultimately, however, the decision lies with the bureau.

As I am also a member of the Procedures Committee, I realise that the bill is caught in the transitional arrangements that have resulted from the change in procedures. You said that you distributed your consultation paper widely—indeed, you listed the organisations to which you sent information. Can you give the committee an indication of the level of response that you received?

As of yesterday, 428 postcards have been returned, 1,106 signatures have been added to the petition and I have received full responses from 27 individuals, including four responses that were made on forms that were downloaded from my website, which means that they are from respondents who were not sent the consultation document directly.

As there are no further questions, is there anything that you want to say in conclusion?

I am grateful to the Justice 1 Committee for taking the time to consider the matter. The proposal is worth while. Certainly, over the Christmas and new year holidays, I received indications of wide support from much of civic Scotland, including individuals and many colleagues in most parties in the Parliament. I hope that the committee will look sympathetically at the proposal this morning.

Thank you. The only question is whether the committee is satisfied with Karen Whitefield's explanation of why she is not going out to further consultation. Are members satisfied?

Members indicated agreement.

As you can see, Karen, the committee is satisfied with your reasons. As it is only 9.47, you are in good time for your committee meeting. Thank you for attending this morning.