Holyrood making bad law, says ex-MSP

Solicitor claims lack of revising mechanism leading to poor quality legislation

News, 6 September 2005

The Scottish Parliament is passing confusing, contradictory and poor quality legislation, according to one of its former members.

Duncan Hamilton, a former SNP member of the parliament, left in 2003 to pursue a career as a solicitor. He now claims that the absence of any revising mechanism to scrutinise the bills being passed by MSPs is the main weakness of the parliament.

Writing in the Scotsman newspaper today, Mr Hamilton accepts that the public would not accept the extra layer of government that another chamber in the parliament would comprise. Instead he proposes panels of legal experts to examine a bill after it passes its third parliamentary stage and before royal assent, to consider whether the bill effectively fulfils its stated aims and objectives. They would then report to the parliament with any suggested changes, after which the parliament would finally vote on the bill.

"Moving between the worlds of politics and law has confirmed my view that, far from being too closely aligned, Scotland would benefit from a much closer working relationship between lawyers and policiticians", he states. "Too many politicians show a disturbing level of ignorance about the legal process and too many lawyers, even those interested in politics, have no idea about the new legislative arrangements. Bridging that divide would be of enormous benefit to the legal community, the parliament and the nation."

Mr Hamilton claims to know lots of experienced and excellent lawyers who would love to contribute but don't know how. He also maintains that even when the Law Society of Scotland offers evidence to parliamentary committees, it is often ignored, to the detriment of legislation.

"Lawyers must understand they can make a difference and Parliament needs to work on publicising the myriad ways such expert opinion can influence legislation."