³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 21 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2042 contributions

|

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Meeting date: 21 June 2022

Graham Simpson

I am talking about not policy, but planning and timescale.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Meeting date: 21 June 2022

Graham Simpson

I have a comment about the Scottish Law Commission. You will know that the committee works closely with it, as we do with you. Mr Sweeney highlighted that the Law Commission has felt some frustration for a number of years about the amount of work that it puts into developing proposals, a lot of which sit gathering dust. From the committee’s point of view, it would be useful to have some kind of timetable from you, even if it is just to say whether there is a chance of progressing each proposal.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Meeting date: 21 June 2022

Graham Simpson

That is good. That would be useful.

You are right about the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill. I had a quick look at it. It is quite daunting, but we will get stuck in and do a proper job on it.

My area of questioning is on something that you mentioned earlier: the frustration that you and your officials feel about having very little time to scrutinise UK bills. We have found the same thing with Scottish bills. We had a case of that last week, with the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. The day before the stage 3 debate, the committee received a letter telling us about possible new powers relating to the establishment of a food commissioner. We had no time to consider that.

As you said earlier, today the committee will look at the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill following stage 2. Stage 3 amendments have to be laid by noon today, but we are discussing the bill only at this meeting. If the committee decided that there should be an amendment, we would, by the end of the meeting, have less than an hour in which to produce one. That is not acceptable, is it?

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Meeting date: 21 June 2022

Graham Simpson

We do not set the timescale—you do. Things need to improve; we should not be in this position.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Meeting date: 21 June 2022

Graham Simpson

The committee has not seen that yet.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Meeting date: 21 June 2022

Graham Simpson

My question is not about policy but about giving the committee enough time to deal with whatever is in front of it. I have not mentioned the policy behind the bill.

10:15  

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Meeting date: 21 June 2022

Graham Simpson

Lovely, thank you.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Meeting date: 21 June 2022

Graham Simpson

I was talking about not the UK Government, but you, Mr Adam.

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Graham Simpson

I do not particularly want you to, but—

COVID-19 Recovery Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 9 June 2022

Graham Simpson

The DPLR Committee said that the default position should be the affirmative procedure. It did not completely rule out the made affirmative procedure, but it recommended that certain things should be put in place if that procedure is to be used. That was the purpose of amendments in my name that you have voted against, Mr Mason, despite saying that you agree with me.

Given that the committee rejected those amendments, I will not move the amendments in my name in this group and force a vote. However, I am keen to work with the cabinet secretary—if he is up for it; it is up to him—to see whether we can improve things in the area. I make that offer.