Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2025
It is a pleasure to close this, if not graveyard debate, perhaps more terms and conditions slot that we find ourselves in, given that we are discussing contract law. The bill is a serious and thoughtful attempt to modernise Scots contract law that introduces clear statutory rules on contract formation and remedies for breach that will improve certainty, accessibility and fairness, particularly for people who negotiate without the specialist legal advice that some companies and corporations have.
As we have heard, the bill stems from the Scottish Law Commission’s 2018 review. Like others, I thank Lady Paton and the commission for the valuable work that they do.
A number of members have pointed out the challenges around what the current postal service provides in relation to the 19th century concept of postal acceptance, which will be abolished. I hope that I speak for the whole chamber when I say that that is a criticism not of our postal workers but perhaps of the organisation that they find themselves in.
The Law Commission’s purpose was explicit. It needed rules that are clear, as certain as possible and accessible to lawyer and layperson alike. That latter point is hugely important. Colin Borland of the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed that approach. He said:
“It is quite sensible to … provide clear backstops”
and that
“anything that is done to codify, simplify or clarify the law and to make it easier for us as laypeople to understand has to be a good thing.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 25 November 2025; c 7.]
I echo that view.
Similarly, the Law Society of Scotland noted that, although it may be overstating matters to argue that Scots contract law needs reform, a new statutory regime has the potential to offer benefits by providing rules that are usable without deep recourse to case law and academic sources, which we have heard about today.
I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its phenomenal work with regard to this and other commission reports. I say gently to the committee’s convener that, although the bill has not attracted mass interest so far, we can be certain that, if mistakes were made and legislation that had unforeseen consequences was created, people would scream and shout. The committee does incredibly powerful work. It may go unnoticed, but that is perhaps one of the virtues of its success.
On the speeches that we have heard today, I thank Bill Kidd, if only for getting “fabbydoo” into the Official Report again—well done. I also thank Oliver Mundell for his speech. I noted his concern that I might speak for 30 minutes, but I would never impinge on the patience of the Presiding Officers by ignoring their indication of the length of time that we have to speak.
We recognise that the bill is not a complete codification. It leaves areas untouched with regard to interpretation, penalty clauses and what is commonly called the battle of the forms. I hope that the Government will signal that, at stage 2, it will lodge amendments on retention that reflect the case law. I look forward to seeing those.
I close by quoting an authority who is germane to the purposes today. When the commission's report was published, Professor Hector MacQueen said:
“when implemented this report will do much to remove current uncertainties as well as simplifying and modernising the law.”
That is the destination. Our task in Parliament is to not lose sight of the urgent human challenges that also require the Parliament’s attention and to move the bill forward as swiftly as possible.