Item 4 is for the committee to consider its approach to the scrutiny of the financial memorandum to the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill. Hard copies of the bill and the clerk's paper have been circulated to members.
I have no doubt that we all want the bill to be put in place as quickly as possible but, equally, we need to apply a degree of scrutiny to make sure that the financial memorandum's provisions are robust. My preference is that we hold an oral evidence session. Based on the evidence that we get from the Scottish Court Service, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, local authorities and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, if the need arises and if anyone is objecting robustly, could we reserve half an hour to take verbal evidence from one panel of witnesses?
I hope to be able to accommodate it within the time.
That will depend on the lead committee's timetable, but if time permits, I see no reason why not.
We will do our best.
Regardless of whether we take written or oral evidence, if we are asking for evidence from the Royal Institute of British Architects, we should also ask for evidence from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland.
Is that agreed?
Can I just clarify that the written evidence is to be sought from organisations on which costs might fall?
I am sorry; I was looking at the wrong bill.
We all know the feeling, but David Whitton has the floor.
There is an organisation in my constituency that might have an interest: the Association of Commercial Attorneys. Its members could work on the issues in the bill but are barred from doing so in courts at the moment by sheriffs principal. They act for people in construction law and so on. I am not sure that the costs of the legislation would fall on them but, in discussions that I have had with the association, it says that they could reduce the costs of appearing in court to face repossession and so on; rather than being represented by a lawyer, people could be represented by one of those guys. Maybe the best thing would be to ask the association to supply written views rather than appear before the committee.
That would be fine.
Okay. I will do that.
Are we content with the clerk's suggestions about who we should take evidence from, along with the suggested additions? I hope that the timetable will not be too tight, but we will just have to take that as it comes and seek written evidence. Are we content with the proposed approach?
Members indicated agreement.