Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2025 [Draft]
I am grateful for the clarification on time, Presiding Officer, because Martin Whitfield told me on the way into the chamber that he was planning to speak for 30 minutes, and it frightened me that I might not get my lunch.
With that to one side, I associate myself with the kind words that have been said by many members in relation to Lady Paton. She has done an excellent job and has played a significant part in the fact that five Scottish Law Commission bills have proceeded during the parliamentary session.
Although today’s debate is in the graveyard slot and there is not a lot of controversy around it, we should not allow ourselves to mistake that for saying that the bill is not important. Parliament is not just here for headlines or to provide social media clips. The fact that we have waited almost a quarter of a century in the devolved era for this legislation to come forward poses some questions about how we do our business. Today’s debate is perhaps not the place to get into that, but there is room in a new parliamentary session for new thinking about further enhancing the processes that allow such bills to come forward and for allowing committees in general to introduce legislation.
Credit is due to Graeme Dey for pushing the process forward and for recognising the work of the DPLR Committee and the enthusiasm of its members, which is evident even today, just before Christmas. Credit is also due to Stuart McMillan in particular for making the time to look at the bills in such detail and with exactly the same consideration as would be given to any other legislation. As a past member of that committee, I know how well that has worked and how well the committee is supported by its clerks and the Parliament’s legal team.
As we have heard, there is little question about members’ support for the bill’s general principles. The only substantive opposition and concerns appear to have come from those who retain a romanticised attachment to common law and the institutional writers of ages past. When we look at the modern world and at some of the legislation that makes it on to the statute books, it is perhaps easy to see where such views come from. However, as other members have referenced, the world has changed and, if only we still had a reliable postal service to fall back on, things might be different.
I get that there is an attraction to maintaining traditions and distinctiveness in our legal system, but that has to be balanced and tempered by reality, both commercial and social. Predictability and accessibility in the law matter, and law does not exist in a vacuum, nor are its impacts confined exclusively within the bounds of Scotland. I think that that makes a strong case for careful and gradual codification in areas where uncertainty has emerged. It is important to recognise that that uncertainty has not emerged on purpose but through the absence, age and specific nature of case law.
In a number of key areas, the bill will make processes easier and will provide, as other members have referenced, a backstop or a starting point for contract formation. That is surely a good thing.
In closing, as we have already heard from any doubters, there will always be the opportunity for those who do not like the bill and its provisions to opt out and agree on alternatives. Those who stand to benefit most are the very individuals and small businesses that rely most on the law to establish fairness and balance. I therefore look forward to the bill moving forward to stages 2 and 3.