Right, ladies and gentlemen, let us make a start. I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Procedures Committee. I will introduce our guests in a moment, after we have dealt with the first agenda item. As members will have noted, in relation to our inquiry into private bill committee assessors, some of the oral evidence that we hoped to have this week has not materialised for various reasons and various contradictory bits of written evidence have materialised. In fact, another one arrived late yesterday and it will be circulated. I suggest that, at the end of the meeting, we have a private discussion of where we go from here. Obviously, we need an open official discussion at the first opportunity, but we need a private discussion to steer our boat in the right direction now. Do members agree to take item 6 in private?
I hear what you say, but I wonder why we should take the discussion in private, given that all the other matters that relate to the inquiry will be taken in public. I do not know what you received this morning, but I read through the submissions and found nothing that needs to be discussed in private.
The paper that arrived yesterday was a further load of legal advice from the parliamentary legal people, which is traditionally discussed in private. It would be helpful to have a discussion with them and to deal with the other submissions that have been made so that we can proceed from there in public. A private discussion would be helpful to get the process going.
I would be concerned if there were legal advice on the matter that had not been presented to us before now. We were clear that we wanted to see any legal advice in advance of meetings to allow us to consider it before we proceed with the inquiry. Obviously, there are issues to do with the timescale. If the timescale is hindered for any reason, I would be concerned about that. I am concerned that legal advice is being tabled today that I have not had an opportunity to read.
The legal advice that was sent yesterday was a response from our lawyers to a document that we received from the Faculty of Advocates. Our lawyers had no opportunity to send it before then, as it was a response to another piece of evidence.
Has it been sent to members? I do not have it.
No, it is being distributed. It got to the clerk only late yesterday.
We have legal advice that may or may not be contrary to the advice from the Faculty of Advocates, which will be considered in public under item 3. Apparently, the other legal advice, to which we are not yet privy, will be discussed in private. It is strange that we should treat sets of legal advice differently.
With due respect, what you say is not correct. Under agenda item 3, we will take oral evidence from two lawyers, not from the Faculty of Advocates. The advice from the Faculty of Advocates does not come up under item 3.
With due respect, the paper that I have states:
I have not got that in my papers.
Well, I have. I have a written report by the Faculty of Advocates, which is marked "Agenda item 3" and which gives specific legal advice that is contrary to what we have heard previously. We may not be interviewing representatives of the Faculty of Advocates today, but the report is marked as "Agenda item 3".
I will suggest a possible alternative approach. I appreciate that legal advice from our lawyers has traditionally been discussed in private, which is appropriate, but could we hear the advice on the public papers that have been submitted in private and then go into public to discuss how to proceed, given that advice from our lawyers?
Yes. If the committee agrees, we can go back into public after our private discussion of item 6. I am not in favour of discussing issues in private when that is not necessary but, traditionally, legal advice from our lawyers has been discussed in private. It is only fair to them that we adhere to that custom.
I suggest that we get legal advice from our own lawyers in private but then move back into public session to discuss the papers before us and decide where we go from there with respect to our inquiry.
Is that agreeable to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.