Item 3 on the agenda is the draft arbitration bill. The committee will remember that I undertook to meet Lord Dervaird and Lord Coulsfield. I duly did that, with Nicola Sturgeon—
No.
I beg you pardon—with Karen Whitefield, not Nicola Sturgeon. Pauline McNeill was also there, along with Margaret Mitchell from the Justice 1 Committee. Lord Dervaird and Lord Coulsfield simply explained to us what lay behind the bill. Also present at the meeting was a solicitor—a Mr Arnott—who has extensive experience in arbitration, and we were able to ask questions.
I remind members that tomorrow we have a joint meeting with the Justice 1 Committee to discuss the budget process. That meeting is at a quarter past 10 in committee room 1.
Oh, good. I am glad that the meeting is not in the Hub.
The next meeting of the Justice 2 Committee will be on 27 April. At that meeting, we will take evidence from the minister. We also propose to consider a report on our youth justice inquiry and to consider our response to the Procedures Committee's legislation inquiry.
We did not decide to try to ask the insurance industry for its views. There seem to be many differing views on how insurance will work in the Tenements (Scotland) Bill.
I am sorry—what are we talking about?
I am going back to the Tenements (Scotland) Bill—
The Tenements (Scotland) Bill?
Yes—you were saying that the minister is coming to give us evidence. Was any thought given to trying to get some opinions from insurance organisations about how the Tenements (Scotland) Bill will work?
You mean the insurance companies or the insurance industry.
Yes. Does not it seem to be a contentious area?
Have there been any submissions from any parts of the insurance industry?
I cannot remember. Some of those whom we approached to give evidence said that they were not in a position to add anything, but I cannot remember whether that included anyone from the insurance industry. I will need to check that and get back to you.
I believe that mortgage lenders were invited to submit evidence, but they said that they had nothing to add. In terms of taking oral evidence, members will see that our timetable is squashed to the point of impossibility. I can certainly offer to write a letter to the appropriate body in the time that is available, if that would assist the committee. There is a body called the Association of British Insurers.
I wonder whether other members believe that it would be helpful to do that.
It would be helpful. A number of points have been raised not only in this meeting, but at our previous meeting, some of which were contradictory. We need to get to the bottom of those.
That was my thought.
I suggest that we leave it to the clerks to determine—[Interruption.] It has been pointed out to me that we received a written submission from the Association of British Insurers.
Oh, right. Perhaps I have not seen that.
Can we check whether that submission addresses the specific points that have come up in evidence?
If it does not and any points need clarification, you can let the clerks know and we will draft a letter. We can undertake to do that.
On owners associations or management schemes being partly reserved matters, that issue came up during the passage of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill and there was much discussion about it in committee. I wonder whether the clerks could look back at those debates to see what was said in the end.
I understand the technicalities that are involved, in that the bodies to which you referred are constituted or defined as business enterprises. That is what it makes it incompetent for us to legislate on them.
A formula was used during consideration of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill that enabled us to address the issue. However, I cannot remember exactly what that formula was. Could we have a wee look for that?
We can arrange for the clerks to do so. If there are no other matters arising, I bring the meeting to a close.
Meeting closed at 16:47.
Previous
Annual Report