Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Justice 2 Committee, 30 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004


Contents


Constitutional Reform Bill

The Convener:

A paper on the bill from the clerks has been circulated to members. We took most instructive evidence on the bill. The clerks have prepared a helpful paper that gives us the background at the time when we undertook the task and the situation as it has been altered by the change in proceedings south of the border. I am happy for the committee to consider what it wants to do about the bill.

Karen Whitefield:

The committee took interesting evidence and it would be a shame if we did not complete the process. I suggest that we restrict ourselves to focusing on specific issues and on the need for amendments. It is important that we hear from Lord Falconer or, if he is unavailable, from the Lord Advocate. I suggest that we wait to find out the Executive's position on the Sewel motion and whether either of or both those ministers is willing to give evidence to the committee, so that we can conclude our deliberations and complete a report, which will allow our views to be taken into account.

That is helpful.

Nicola Sturgeon:

I agree with Karen Whitefield and I say for the record that it is essential for us to complete our report so that it can be considered by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill. Given the process that is being followed, that is the obvious way for our views to be taken into account.

I will simply repeat the comments that I made in a previous discussion: I appreciate that Lord Falconer might be difficult to pin down, but it should be our preference that he appear before us. We know the Lord Advocate's views. Lord Falconer is in charge of the bill and can tell us from the horse's mouth about amendments to protect Scots law.

The Convener:

The committee is unanimous about the proposal. Members will see from the clerks' note that we are in the grip of one or two timescales that are made a little more pressing because of the intervening recess. If we are to take evidence from Lord Falconer or, if he is unavailable, from the Lord Advocate, we will need to make contact immediately.

If the committee agrees, I will ask the clerks to write to the Minister for Justice to confirm that the Executive knows what is intended for the Sewel procedure. Concurrently, we should ask the clerks to make overtures to Lord Falconer with a view to his giving us evidence. Members will see from the fairly tight timeframe that we will have to take that evidence in the week commencing 10 May. We need to make initial progress on that. We will have that meeting and aim to draft a report towards the end of May, although that will depend on what we find out. Is that course of action acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.