Chamber and committees

That is okay. As no one else has a view on that, I will move on.

My final question is on regulations that reinstate REUL or assimilated law and that are subject to the negative procedure except when they amend primary legislation, in which case the draft affirmative procedure is to be used. What is your view on the appropriateness of that procedure? Obviously, that is slightly different to other parts of the bill.

Do neither of the other witnesses have a view on that?

If there is disagreement on whether a change is substantive, what does that mean for the parliamentary process?

So, if such changes were subject to the negative procedure, that would be too low a bar, as was outlined earlier?

Do the other two witnesses have any further comments to make on that point?

Thank you for that. The power to restate can be used to consolidate REUL or assimilated law into a single instrument. What are the implications of that? What are your views on that? That question is open to all three witnesses.

We have touched on this point already in relation to the appropriateness of the negative procedure, to which I will come back in a second. When it comes to restating REUL or assimilating law, the power to use different “words or concepts” does not go as far as making

“substantive change to the policy effect of legislation.”

Morag Ross mentioned substantive change in one of her answers. What is the threshold for substantive change? Where does that sit?

I will probably disappoint when it comes to filling the full seven minutes, but I have very much enjoyed today’s debate. I particularly enjoyed Jackie Dunbar’s mention of her O-grade pass in accountancy, because it gives me the chance to fess up and say that I did not do particularly well in Professor Andrew Steven’s property law class. Therefore, when he appeared in front of the committee and I had the chance to question him on the issues around the bill, I had to tread carefully in case I got any remedial lessons.

The evidence that we heard on the bill largely focused on the challenges around its application to individuals and showed that the bill is a well-designed and much-needed piece of legislation. As a Parliament, we have to be careful when we talk about Scottish Law Commission bills, because the process by which they come to the DPLR Committee is meant to be based on their being non-controversial. The truth is that the bill is not controversial, but it has touched on the controversial issue of predatory lending, particularly to vulnerable individuals. However, it is not the substance or the initial intentions of the bill that have caused that controversy, which has been a result of the process.

In that intervention, Martin Whitfield has touched on part of the challenge: the Scottish Law Commission is asked to do a certain job, but it is not asked to do the job of politicians. It is our job to talk about the morality, politics and practical effects of legislation, and the fears that those can generate. It is not for academics or those bringing forward such proposals to the Government and the Parliament to test out all the political aspects and challenges that those proposals bring.

The process has worked this time, because it has allowed a bill that is not fundamentally controversial to be introduced more quickly than it might otherwise have been; it has also allowed for all the issues in the bill to be tested. The minister has certainly worked well with the committee in recognising that challenge. Even if it is not as big an issue in practice as some witnesses or members of the committee felt, we have to take steps in the bill to make clear its intention if people are to have confidence in it.

I am interested in an issue that has not come up in the debate, which I ask the minister to look at or to touch on in his closing speech. One concern that came out of the discussions is whether money advice services that act on behalf of individuals on a pro bono basis should be able to conduct free searches. I know that the minister said in his letter of 12 December that relatively small amounts are involved: a £60 registration fee and a £4 search fee. However, such fees could start to add up for organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland, which operates across much of Scotland, deals with a lot of vulnerable individuals and might do a lot of searches in trying to work out exactly who people owe money to. If we are going to create this opportunity for businesses and lenders, we have to be mindful that there could be disadvantages for other organisations that act in the wider public interest to support our constituents and those accessing finance across the country. I would like to hear a little more about that.

I reiterate the Scottish Conservatives’ support in principle for the bill, and I thank the minister again for the constructive way in which he appears to be proceeding towards stage 2.

To ask the Scottish Government what urgent action it is taking to stabilise NHS dentistry services in Dumfries and Galloway. (S6O-01601)