Plenary, 18 Jun 2009
Meeting date: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Official Report
655KB pdf
Business Motion
Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of motion S3M-4395, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, which is to agree to treat the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill as an emergency bill.
I propose that the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be considered under the emergency legislation procedure. If Parliament allows the bill to be dealt with under that procedure, I will explain the background in more detail in the stage 1 debate. For now, I will outline why the bill should be handled under that exceptional procedure.
The need for the bill stems from the decision of the House of Lords in the Somerville case, which left the Scottish Government exposed to claims for damages that arise from alleged breaches of convention rights, but without the one-year time limit that was previously thought to apply. That has created uncertainty about which time limit—if any—applies in such cases and has led to tens of millions of pounds having to be put aside to meet possible compensation claims. It is generally agreed that the situation needs to be resolved as quickly as possible: passing the bill today would achieve that.
The bill deals with a particular problem that the Somerville decision highlighted. The bill is short and focused and its wording reflects the order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 that Parliament recently considered and which gives Parliament the power to pass the bill.
I accept the need for emergency legislation, but the bill was published only on 15 June. The cabinet secretary has told us that work has been done on the issue for quite a long time, and a draft bill was available for some time, but would it not have been helpful to have published the bill sooner, so that people could consider it in detail; to have consulted stakeholders, given that he announced his proposals in March; and to have asked the Justice Committee to examine the bill briefly, to ensure that we had got it right? We know from dangerous dogs legislation that such emergency legislation has hazards. It is important that the details as well as the principle are right.
What Robert Brown said has much merit. It is clear that any Administration will use the emergency legislation procedure only sparingly. The Administration of which he was a part introduced emergency legislation that related to the circumstances of the Ruddle case. We would have preferred to deal with the current situation a considerable time ago but, because of the need for negotiations with bodies elsewhere, that did not happen.
That said, our intention has been on the public record. Through the media and other means, it is clear that people have been aware of the on-going matter. I give the assurance that we will not introduce emergency legislation as a matter of course. Normally, we will involve the Justice Committee—including Mr Brown as a member, and its eminent convener—to ensure that it plays its appropriate part in scrutinising proposals.
However, it is clear that it is in the public interest to act expeditiously now, before Parliament winds down for the recess. The Government makes no apology for proceeding under the emergency procedure, although I accept that in the normal course of events, legislation should be subject to the full procedure, which allows greater scrutiny. The proposals have none the less been subject to substantial scrutiny and have been a matter of public record.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.
Motion agreed to.