˿

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 29 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1090 contributions

|

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 5 December 2023

Paul O'Kane

Is there time for me to ask a further question?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 5 December 2023

Paul O'Kane

I am confused. Last week, when Lady Dorrian was asked directly about what engagement there had been over the proposed amendments, she said that

“high-level suggestions have been made to us”

and she spoke about being “presented with a paper” that the senators felt that they

“could not respond to, because it was lacking in detail. Another paper was submitted to us that had more detail, but at a very high level”.

The senators had

“not looked at detailed proposals for amendment. Insofar as we were able to, we responded to that in as ... helpful a way as we could.”

Crucially, Lady Dorrian said that

“the devil is in the detail”,—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 28 November 2023; c 13, 7.]

and explained that it is not possible to comment on detail that is not there. I am trying to understand why we are in this position.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 5 December 2023

Paul O'Kane

I am trying to understand why we are in the position of having to amend the bill at stage 2. The committee does not have the detail on that and nor do the Lord President and the senators of the College of Justice. The minister would accept that it is highly unusual for the most senior judges in the country to come to a committee of the Scottish Parliament to give evidence. Will she outline clearly what consultation took place with the Lord President and what information he was given about the amendments?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 5 December 2023

Paul O'Kane

I appreciate the degree to which we want to find consensus, and the Lord President and other stakeholders are obviously keen to make a contribution, but would the minister accept that it is for the committee to make a judgment on the amendments, that any changed nature of the bill will once again need to be scrutinised, and that that is a real challenge for the committee in carrying out its democratic function in the timescales that we have?

Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 30 November 2023

Paul O'Kane

I will continue from where Katy Clark left off.

The committee has heard significant criticisms of IIDB. For example, Ian Tasker told the committee that it is

“no longer fit for purpose”.

Given those criticisms, is it still an option to introduce EIA largely unreformed? Does the cabinet secretary recognise the criticisms of IIDB and does she view it as acceptable to introduce a benefit in that state?

Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 30 November 2023

Paul O'Kane

It is interesting that the cabinet secretary talks about timescales and the length of time that it will take to do things in this space. The Scottish Government has made repeated commitments to bring forward the consultation, but it has been continually delayed. The committee was told in September that the consultation would happen this year. The last month of the year starts tomorrow. Therefore, where is the Scottish Government in the process of formulating the consultation? Why have there been such repeated delays? What has prevented the Government from providing clear timelines on this?

Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 30 November 2023

Paul O'Kane

The cabinet secretary has made that point a number of times. The issue is that the pledge to carry out a consultation is now three years old. Can the cabinet secretary give the committee any sense of the timescale for the consultation? As I said, the last month of the year starts tomorrow. Clearly, you are not going to deliver a consultation this year, so is there any indication of when it is going to happen?

Social Justice and Social Security Committee

Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 30 November 2023

Paul O'Kane

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that spending on IIDB will be £84 million this year, falling to £81 million in 2027-28. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the budget saving there is, in essence, because people are dying? People are not able to make a claim and they are dying. Does she recognise that that is a serious issue?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 November 2023

Paul O'Kane

I am grateful to your lordships.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 November 2023

Paul O'Kane

The Government will lodge amendments, we think. In a sense, that is the known unknown. We have had that discussion with other witnesses.

Can the bill be amended? You said that a compromise will not satisfy everyone. Are there amendments that could be made that would move the bill to a place where we could get more consensus? There was a view that perhaps the Lord President did not feel as consulted in your review as he could have been. I am keen to get your view on that. Could the legal profession have contributed more to your review and got us to a position of consensus?