Chamber and committees

Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2023 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I remind everyone present to switch their mobile phones to silent. We have received apologies from Oliver Mundell.

The first item of business is to decide whether to take item 6 in private. Are members content to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I will go into one aspect of the bill that has come up so far, which is the issue of the section 104 order. Do the witnesses believe that the Scottish and the United Kingdom Governments should design a protocol, so that, if there is a section 104 issue with the bill, that can be dealt with automatically?

I mean in general. Last week, the Parliament passed the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill, and the section 104 order was one of the outstanding issues with the bill—it certainly was at the beginning of the bill process, but the section 104 issue has arisen again.

I suspect that as more Scottish Law Commission bills are introduced—and potentially other legislation—the section 104 order might become more of an issue. If a protocol of some kind was put together, would that help with the advancement of legislation?

On that point, I note that, in your submission, you state:

“A full codification would have stretched the SLC’s resources and would have considerably delayed the completion of the project. From a practical point of view the SLC had to stop somewhere. Passing the existing bill would not preclude the possibility of further measures at some time in the future.”

Is what is proposed in the bill, notwithstanding the comments that have been made today, a useful starting point to update the law on succession to help with the flow of activity?

An issue has been raised in relation to the draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023, which amends existing legislation to grant immunities and privileges, insofar as they are within devolved competence, to certain persons working with the International Criminal Police Organization, Interpol.

The order states that the term “Member Country” has the meaning that it has in the constitution of Interpol. However, the term does not appear in Interpol’s constitution, although it appears in the agreement between the UK and Interpol, which is referred to in the order. When asked about that, the Scottish Government responded that the term “Member Country” has been used for consistency with the terms of the agreement and that the term has evolved into general use.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (h) because the meaning of the term “Member Country” could be clearer?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we close, does anyone have any final points to highlight?

The committee genuinely appreciates the work of both the Scottish and UK Governments on moveable transactions and also with regard to the section 104 order, because a lot of work has taken place on that.

That was not a trick question, and it was not a constitutional question; it was just to see whether there was a smoother way.

Thank you. Going back to the issue of moving domicile, would that be an issue with regard to this, in terms of the 25 years?

No points have been raised on the regulations. Is the committee content with the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 4, we are considering an instrument that is subject to the negative procedure.