Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill
We will move on to item 4, which is the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill. This is the first member's bill. The committee will consider options for dealing with the bill at stage 1. I draw the committee's attention to the very helpful research note on poindings and warrant sales that was published by the Scottish Parliament information centre on 13 September. We should thank Fiona Killen for her work on that. If anyone has not seen it, they should get hold of a copy. Christine, you look puzzled; if you go to SPICe you will find a copy.
I know where SPICe is. Do not be wicked.
The research note was not sent out with the bill. It is entirely up to members' initiative to get a copy.
We need to consider how to handle stage 1 of the bill. As I said, there was a discussion about this at the bureau meeting yesterday afternoon. The motion that will be before Parliament designating us the lead committee will not contain any timetable; this committee is not being told by when it is required to produce the stage 1 report. However, I said at the bureau that we could prepare the report by Christmas. A stage 1 debate could then be scheduled for January.
Because this is a member's bill, there has not been extensive pre-legislative consultation—although there has been some—so I think we will want to hear evidence. Members may recall that the Minister for Justice commented on warrant sales in his evidence to us at our first meeting, on 31 August.
We should hear from the Executive—not necessarily from the Minister for Justice, but from somebody who is authorised to speak for the Executive on this. I also think that we should consider inviting other interested people. A number of people have intimated interest, including Customs and Excise, which will give evidence on why warrant sales ought not to be abolished. Other groups, such as poverty action groups, will want to present some form of briefing, whether in person or in writing.
It would not be appropriate for us to proceed on the bill without taking evidence. We should also invite Tommy Sheridan MSP to speak to us, as it is his bill.
There are a couple of organisations that I would like to suggest: the Federation of Small Businesses, retailers organisations, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I would like to add Money Advice Scotland, which has a lot of experience in this area.
I agree that we should take evidence. This is unlike other bills, on which there are extensive briefings and consultation.
I am concerned that you said that we could do it by Christmas—I wonder why you think that.
Are you going white, Pauline? We will do our best. I appreciate that the work load of this committee is enormous. We have done extremely well so far, and I commend all members of the committee on the work that is being done. We did not come up with the Christmas date out of thin air.
Are we meeting on Christmas day as well?
It came out of discussion with the clerk. There is no timetabling for this bill. If we find that it is becoming extremely difficult to complete our scrutiny by Christmas, we are not held to a timetable, although I would not want to treat a members' bill less seriously than an Executive bill. However, no timetabling motion will be lodged for this particular bill and if we have to push on a little bit into January, we can do so.
I do not want to put the fear of God into you all, including the clerks, but I would also not rule out meeting a little more frequently. It is possible to do so. If it took, for example, only one extra meeting to complete the process, I would suggest that we should find time to schedule it. Obviously, I would not do that without consulting all members. However, I would like us to try to progress as quickly as possible.
It strikes me that although this is the lead committee for the bill, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee might take a great deal of interest in it as well. If we have briefings, would it be possible to invite members of that committee?
There are several options. It would be possible to suggest that the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee might like to hear some of the evidence and report to us rather than—if we produce a long list of potential witnesses—try to deal with every witness ourselves. It might be possible for us to consult that committee and share the work load. That would be a way of cutting back on this committee's potential work load.
If the committee were happy enough to handle the consultation in that way, I would discuss with the convener of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee how we might timetable that, and then report back to the committee. It would be possible, and may be considered appropriate, for example, for the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to hear the evidence of Money Advice Scotland and one or two other such organisations that the committee believes should have an input, but which it would not necessarily occur to us, as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, to invite, as we tend to default to the statutory or professional organisations.
With this committee's agreement, I shall consult the convener of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to inquire whether we can share the work load on this bill. I shall take into account the concerns that Pauline has raised. Nevertheless, I believe that the committee wants to show itself capable of dealing with the work load that has been presented to us.
Did anybody else want to comment?
I concur that we should not make distinctions between Executive bills and members' bills, and that we should deal with them on their merits. My problem is with the timetabling. We have lots of eggs in baskets now, and I suggest that we should discuss the timetabling. I do not think that the matter should be deferred or that we should sit on the fence. In arranging the agenda at the end, we may need to schedule additional meetings to keep the pace up on the other two issues that were raised—domestic violence and prisons
That is right. The timetabling of all that will go on the agenda, under future business. We have serious issues to deal with, and I am aware that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee might end up being the lead committee for every second member's bill.
I want to ensure that we keep up our momentum and freshness.
Absolutely. It is possible for us to have joint meetings with the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. We can decide whether that would be appropriate.
We must keep in mind the fact that this committee is quorate with three members. I know that everyone will do their best to attend, but if we try to schedule extra meetings—whether of this committee alone or of a joint meeting with the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee—members who have serious problems finding the time need not be concerned that their absence will destroy, so to speak, the work of the committee. As long as we are quorate, we can proceed. As convener, I would be concerned only if the members who made up the quorum appeared to give an unbalanced view of the committee as a whole. I would not want to proceed on that basis. However, with that caveat, we can consider a number of options for handling our work load when we come to item 6 on the agenda, which is future business.
Are members are happy enough with that? Do we agree that we will want to take evidence on this bill?
Members indicated agreement.