Seòmar agus comataidhean

Police Scotland raised no concerns about that. For example, the offence of being drunk in charge of a child perhaps does not happen these days as much as it did historically. I do not know—I am just guessing at that. When we engaged with the police on the instrument, it was not an issue that they raised, but they wanted that offence kept on the list.

As I said, police told us during our conversations that removing the charges would be beneficial for them, and we have been able to work on that in the current parliamentary session through this piece of secondary legislation.

Looking forward to the next parliamentary session, we all appreciate the issues that exist with regard to antisocial behaviour. An independent report came out last year and we have been working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Police Scotland regarding its recommendations. One of the recommendations was to fully review antisocial behaviour legislation. That will be for the next Government to do, and I hope that it will be taken forward.

Good morning. The bill that we are discussing today implements recommendations that the Scottish Law Commission made in 2018. It largely restates the current Scots law of contract formation while clarifying some doubts about the law that have crept in over the years.

Contract law is vitally important to our everyday economic life and for all types of transactions, involving businesses and individuals alike. Many contracts are made, carried through, and become the subject of disputes between parties who have no professional assistance. One of the bill’s principal purposes is to produce legal rules that are clear, certain and accessible. Like most of the witnesses that you have heard from, I think that we have achieved that.

As you know, part 1 of the bill concerns the formation of a contract. The main reform that is proposed in part 1 is the abolition of the postal acceptance rule. Abolition of this rule has been a long-time recommendation that the SLC has made repeatedly over the past 50 years. I am glad to bring forward a provision that will, finally, give effect to this recommendation and bring Scots law into line with other international instruments that have no such rule.

Part 2 of the bill, meanwhile, deals with remedies for breach of contract. Although that part is not as wide as the consultation topics discussed by the SLC, it is in line with the SLC’s recommendations and stakeholder opinion. The committee has heard from a number of witnesses about why the scope of the bill should not be widened.

There is one exception, which is the law of retention. I wrote to the committee in October to set out my intention to lodge amendments at stage 2 that would reform the law. That is the end result of a period of consultation, building on the considered work of the SLC and Lorna Richardson of the University of Edinburgh over the past decade or so. The law of retention is unclear, and we have in the bill an opportunity to introduce some much-needed clarity. Having listened to the evidence given to this committee, I am pleased that there has been broad consensus on the general purposes of the bill.

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

As the committee heard from a range of stakeholders, there is uncertainty in a number of specific points around contract law. I think that only one respondent to the committee’s call for views was outright against reform. The overwhelming majority of consultees agree that law reform is needed in this area.

The bill largely restates the common law on formation of contract to improve accessibility to the law and make important reforms to clarify and modernise the law. As I said in my opening statement, the principal reform on contract formation is the abolition of the postal acceptance rule, which has been a repeated recommendation by the SLC for more than 50 years. We are going to make the law clearer and more accessible, and the committee and Parliament should take that on board.

I will ask Colin Gilchrist and Michael Paparakis, because they have been dealing on the official side.

Absolutely. If the committee has recommendations about drafting and it thinks that they can make the bill stronger, I am always happy to consider them.

I have considered carefully Dr Brown’s comments, particularly the suggestion that reforming contract law inadvertently alters the wider Scots law of obligations and formation of trusts, wills and promises. Although the bill puts in statute law on formation of contract, it is not a complete codification of the law. Section 23(a) states:

“The provisions of this Act are without prejudice to any enactment or rule of law which … regulates any question which relates to … the formation of a contract … but is not provided for by the provisions of this Act”.

The law on other contractual matters is also saved by section 23. As Professor MacQueen told the committee, Dr Brown’s concerns appear to be “misplaced”, and I agree with that assessment. I also note that Dr Brown’s view was not shared by the other stakeholders who gave evidence.

Yes, I think that it is. I might bring Michael Paparakis in, but I think that this relates to electronic communications and section 13. We have not been specific in the bill—for example, we have not referred to emails in the legislation itself, but the explanatory notes include guidance on, for example, an information technology outage and emails. I note that the Law Society of Scotland has also raised concerns, and if the committee or the Law Society have suggestions for strengthening the bill, I am open to those, but I feel that we have covered that aspect.

The postal acceptance rule means that contracts can be formed without one party ever knowing that their offer has been accepted, and I agree with the majority of stakeholders that that is at odds with common-sense expectations. The law causes uncertainty and confusion for anyone who is not aware of the postal acceptance rule, and I understand that, in practice, it is commonly excluded by well-informed parties. Abolishing the rule will mean that the law will align better with reasonable expectations of most people, including small and micro businesses. As I have said several times, people have been calling for the rule to be abolished for more than 50 years.

Absolutely. I think that, both in our constituencies and personally, we are all dealing with the fact that Royal Mail is totally different from what it was 20 years ago. We have to move with the times.