Rural Affairs Committee, 19 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 19, 2000

Official Report 167KB pdf

---

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill

Item 3 on the agenda is the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. When the committee met on 5 September to consider written evidence on the bill, members asked for a further two weeks to absorb the considerable amount of material that was available at that time. We have now had the chance to read that evidence and the committee can consider how it intends to set about preparing a report on the general principles of the bill. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee will report to us by the October recess on the enforcement aspects of the bill. We must take account of its views before preparing our report. I have written to members privately setting out some of the procedural points and ideas that have been suggested to me by individual members of the committee. We must now decide whether we wish to take further evidence before coming to a conclusion.

I refer members to the private paper that has been circulated. The paper sets out some of the options that are available to the committee and the pitfalls that would lie in our path should we choose to take them. I invite comments on the paper and remind members that they can raise any issue, regardless of whether it appears in the paper.

As you will recall, when we met two weeks ago, I suggested that the written evidence that we had received showed overwhelmingly that—with due respect to Mike Watson—the intentions of the bill's sponsor were not reflected in the bill that is before us and that the bill was badly flawed. I do not want to go into the issues involved, as I know that this is a technical discussion of how we should proceed with the bill. However, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that the bill is flawed and that it would make bad legislation; in other words, it does not hit the targets that Mike Watson said he wanted to hit when he presented the bill to us.

The convener has suggested to us that we can proceed with the bill either by the normal route or by an alternative route. Two weeks ago I would have been happy to move immediately to a discussion of the bill, so that we could recommend to the Parliament that the bill be rejected on the grounds that I have mentioned. If we proceeded by the normal route of a stage 1 examination, that would require us to take oral evidence over many months, because of the huge impact that the bill would have in rural Scotland. That is clear from the thousands of responses that we have received—we have received 3,000 to 4,000 responses on this bill, compared with 86 responses to the proposed salmon conservation bill. We have enough evidence to make it absolutely clear to us what we should do with the bill, and we should not waste any more time on this item, especially when there are important matters such as the salmon conservation bill for us to deal with.

The alternative route that the convener has suggested is helpful and I am willing to consider it rather than move to immediate rejection of the bill. If we take one or two meetings to discuss and agree the main items, we can consider producing a draft report on the evidence and wait for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to present us with its report, which I understand will be available in October. We could then make a recommendation to the Parliament and have a debate on the bill in November. Ultimately, the Parliament will decide what happens to the bill, on a recommendation from the committee. In my view, we should take the second option that the convener has proposed.

On a point of order. Like John Scott and Jamie Stone, I am disadvantaged in that I have not seen the paper that has been distributed. Could a copy be made available to me?

The clerk has indicated to me that the paper was circulated privately to members of the committee and should remain in their hands.

Fair enough, but could you outline what the suggestions are so that I can know what is being discussed?

Two options were proposed in the paper. We could proceed by the normal route for a bill. We would first highlight the major issues on which we wanted to take further evidence. We would then identify appropriate organisations and individuals from whom to take evidence, appointing one reporter to identify suitable witnesses from among the supporters and opponents of the bill and, perhaps, a second reporter to identify other witnesses. After taking oral evidence, we would draft a stage 1 report.

The alternative that has been suggested is that we discuss the issues arising and draw conclusions from the written evidence, appoint reporters to examine the case for and against and proceed quickly to a draft report on 31 October, which is the earliest date by which we could get the input of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

The idea of members' bills is important in the Scottish Parliament. This is not the first such bill that we have considered and I am concerned that we are considering an alternative route. I am more concerned to hear Mike Rumbles talking about wasting time, and about not taking oral evidence. I recall long discussions on the importance of gathering oral evidence in relation to the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. I am concerned about the alternative approach, as it is important that any member of the Scottish Parliament has the right to bring a members' bill to the Parliament and to expect that bill to receive appropriate treatment in the committees.

I am concerned that members are making up their minds on the bill at this stage, or have done so already and have told the press that they are not prepared to support the bill and will push it out by another means. I am not prepared to support that.

I have spent some time reading the almost 4,000 letters that we received on the bill. In essence—I hope that I will be forgiven for a slight generalisation—those who support the bill have one main reason: they believe fox hunting to be a cruel and barbaric activity that should be banned. Those who believe that we should oppose the bill give many reasons. Many are concerned about areas that Mike Watson has said he would prefer to amend out of the bill. That is the point on which I disagree slightly with Cathy Peattie. If the Scottish Executive brought a bill before us and said that it wanted to change the bill hugely because certain things had not been thought of, it would be rightly and severely criticised.

Mike Watson has stated in public that he is interested in the bill as a means of testing a members' bill in the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, I think that Mike Rumbles has every right to take the stance that he has taken, which is why I am speaking in support of him.

It is incumbent on the committee to consider the general principles of the bill as it stands, not as it will be once someone's amendments have been incorporated. We are being asked to spend a huge amount of time taking evidence that, according to the bill's proposer, might not be necessary because he wants to delete parts of the bill. In the Justice and Home Affairs Committee this morning, I believe that considerable doubts were expressed about the competence of the bill on those grounds. I do not like wasting my time or the committee's time. I object hugely to wasting the Parliament's time, as that wastes the taxpayer's time and money. We should seek the shortest possible route by which we can put the bill to the Scottish Parliament for its decision.

I sympathise with Cathy Peattie's comments. The committee has a job to do and we should get on with that job. Members' bills are an important part of the democratic process in the Scottish Parliament. By their nature, such bills will often be controversial. If we let the number of letters that come in dictate how long we are prepared to spend on the bill, or whether we will take short cuts, we are circumventing democracy, and I do not think that we should do that. The purpose of stage 2 and stage 3 is to sort out the detail. If bills were perfect when they were introduced, we would not need stage 2 or stage 3. We should go down the normal route and not look for shortcuts.

Constitutionally, it is important that we recognise that it is the job of the Parliament, not committees, to decide whether legislation is passed. The committee's job is to assist Parliament by clarifying the issues that are involved. At stage 1, our task is to identify those issues and the principles that the bill establishes.

I realise that the convener was trying to be helpful, but he has created a false dichotomy. The issues of principle can be identified and pulled out relatively quickly. To some extent, I agree with Alex Fergusson on that matter. We can identify the issues of principle that are at stake in the bill by going through the stage 1 process, then put to Parliament a clear picture on which it can decide. If Parliament decides to agree stage 1, we must go through a detailed process of examination at subsequent stages to progress the bill. We need to recognise that we have a ground-clearing role in teasing out the principles that are involved in the various issues. Our role becomes clear when we move on to the next stage.

Some members who want to take the alternative route want to assist Parliament. It is clear that Parliament can make up its mind, but it can do so in more than one way and on more than one occasion. The problem is that the controversy has arisen over parts of the bill that might not be included in the bill after stage 2. It is significant that much of the opposition to the bill—both in letters and as expressed outside Parliament—has concentrated on those parts of the bill, which have caused more opposition than some of us would have expected. We did not think that the bill would have the effects that we now realise it would have. That has distorted the written evidence and it will distort the oral evidence. It will certainly affect the amount of time that the oral evidence takes up, as people will come to complain about things that might be deleted from the bill at stage 2. That will waste the committee's time and the time of those witnesses.

If we go to Parliament at an early stage, having heard what we have heard so far, to say that we think there is a problem and to ask whether Parliament agrees with us or wants us to continue with our normal process, we would not set back the process of considering the bill by more than a few weeks.

Given the timing of the hunting season, we would not have delayed the practical implementation of the bill should it be passed. We do not lose anything by allowing Parliament a chance to think again about matters that the committee has picked up during the early part of its consultation. If Parliament thinks that we are wrong, it will send the matter back to us and we will continue our work—we would lose no more than three or four weeks.

Mike Watson will not be surprised to hear that I have significant reservations about the bill, which I have made clear previously. I am also concerned about the proposed alternative route. If the Parliament makes a decision and we have not completed our stage 1 consideration, that would raise some concerns. Mike Watson would be upset if we rejected the bill without having taken oral evidence. If the bill were agreed at stage 1 and we moved to stage 2, we would not have taken evidence on some of the issues that need to be considered.

The paper that the convener has written with the clerk's assistance mentions the fact that there is contradictory evidence on the basic facts; we should concentrate on that at stage 1. I am equally concerned about spending too much time on the matter. Would not it be possible to distil what is contradictory out of all the evidence that has been submitted, then to take oral evidence that focuses on that, rather than on proposed amendments?

There are no real reasons why we should deviate from our usual practice and there are some good reasons why we should not, particularly given the controversy that the bill has attracted. I suspect that many people would be suspicious about why we had taken a different route in our examination of the bill. It might well be a test of the Parliament's processes and rules, but it is not the role of the Rural Affairs Committee to invent new systems as we go along.

I agree with Irene McGugan. It is important that we follow the usual procedures because we are dealing with a members' bill. Executive bills are backed by resources to allow civil servants to put ideas and draft bills out for consultation. Individual members do not have such resources. The issue is not about supporting the bill. As a point of principle, it is important that we carry out the consultation properly, recognising that less consultation has taken place than would be the case for an Executive bill.

Much has been said about taking further evidence. We have all the evidence that we need. The written submissions that we have received—almost 4,000—have been mentioned. We seem to have an abundance of evidence. I see nothing wrong with the suggestion that we short-circuit the procedure by taking an alternative route. That would still give the Parliament the opportunity to take evidence and to hear the submissions that have been made to the Rural Affairs Committee. I support the suggestion that was made by Mike Rumbles and I agree with the alternative route that the convener suggested.

The bill has changed quite dramatically; it is no longer the bill that I was prepared to support at the outset. It seems to have directed its attention away from the original suggestions.

I am a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. This time last year, a document was sent out on a reforming education in schools bill. Following consultation, the document changed not only its name, but its contents. By the time the document went through Parliament, it had changed considerably. That is how the Parliament works: we start with an idea, consider the issues, carry out consultation and amend the proposal accordingly. That is something that we should hold on to.

That was a document; this is a members' bill. The two are not comparable.

It was an education bill.

I will allow Mike Watson to reply when members have finished their discussion.

We are setting up a false dichotomy. I agree with John Munro's point—we have a lot of evidence. It is not absolutely necessary for us to take protracted oral evidence. We must be clear about the committee's responsibilities. It is our responsibility to tease out the various issues in the bill as drafted. We must highlight those issues for the Parliament to assist it in its decision on whether to agree the general principles of the bill. If the Parliament agrees the general principles of the bill, we move to stage 2, which is detailed consideration of the provisions of the bill. At that stage, members will have an opportunity to lodge amendments.

We are not the body that decides. We are the body that deals with the evidence and renders it manageable for the Scottish Parliament. We must make a report on the general principles of the bill. We must distil the written evidence and take such additional oral evidence as we think necessary for sufficient clarification to allow Parliament to make a decision.

There is no fundamental disagreement between the different stances that are being taken by members of the committee.

If Des McNulty was right about the amount of oral evidence, I could see the attraction of his argument. However, he is wrong. The amount of oral evidence that a committee takes is generally proportionate to the amount of written evidence that it receives—the more written evidence we receive, the more oral evidence we must take. The idea that we could get away with taking a small amount of oral evidence does not stand up. If we embark on oral evidence sessions, they will be of significant quantity and length. We should take a health check with the Parliament first to find out whether it wants us to continue.

I understand Alasdair Morgan's point, but it is clear from reading through the evidence that much of it is repetitive. I do not want a protracted process where we discuss the matter for ever—there are more important things that the Rural Affairs Committee could be doing. It would not be impossible to identify the main issues of contradiction and, within a fairly tight time scale, to take evidence from both sides to elucidate and clarify those points.

Cathy Peattie talked about how bills change. I had an open mind about the bill and had decided not even to comment on the issue until I saw what Mike Watson presented in April. I suggested to him then that, especially since he had come armed with proposed amendments to his bill, we would be much better off if he would go away, work on the bill and present the new bill in the form he wanted. If that had been done, we would be progressing the bill now. Instead, five months down the line, we are still talking about whether to take oral evidence.

It is inconceivable that the Scottish Parliament will pass the bill that Mike Watson has presented to us. The argument that it can be amended is fallacious. This is stage 1 examination of the bill, at the end of which we are required to recommend to Parliament that it agrees the bill or rejects it on the general principles as presented to the committee. The issue is simple, and it is clear that the bill is completely flawed—it hits so many different targets. The evidence from between 3,000 and 4,000 individuals and many organisations shows that the bill would be unworkable if we accepted the general principles.

We must consider the process. It would not be inconsistent for us to say now that we have enough evidence—I think we had enough evidence two weeks ago—and that to launch into a process of taking oral evidence would serve no real purpose. I agree with Alasdair Morgan and Alex Fergusson that if we take oral evidence, we are duty bound to take a huge amount of it. It would be daft for the committee to proceed simply to test a members' bill; a members' bill has gone through stage 2 already. The convener has produced a report that suggests a reasoned alternative—I do not like the word "alternate". We are not deviating from our purpose; we are taking a look at the bill. The bill is flawed and it would be wrong to proceed with it. I think the "alternate route" in the convener's paper is the only alternative.

Are there any further comments? If not, I ask Mike Watson to reply.

Thank you. I take on board members' comments; I know that everybody has taken the matter seriously. I hope that the committee will vote to allow the bill to proceed through stage 1, which will include the taking of oral evidence. That is an important part of the process.

Irene McGugan and Rhoda Grant talked about testing the process and I have been quoted—rather unfortunately—a couple of times as having said that I wanted to test the members' bill system. I said that, but in a different context. There is a difference between introducing a bill and saying that it will be useful to see the members' bill process being tested—which is what I said—and saying that I want to test the process therefore I have come up with the bill. I did not say that.

Inevitably, we are testing the process of drafting a bill. I am not a lawyer; I had legal assistance in drafting the bill and, as members may know, I was referred to the Standards Committee. The legal advice was that the form in which the bill was drafted did not adequately reflect its intentions. Members can criticise the bill on that ground, but it is not an Executive bill and I do not have civil servants to draft it. It is usual for a bill to be amended as it goes through Parliament. Eleven bills have gone through Parliament so far and none has completed the process without amendment, so amendments are not in themselves unusual. I have proposed two amendments so far. The Minister for Justice lodged 248 amendments to the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill.

It has also been said that large parts of the bill have been changed. Mike Rumbles said that the bill is not what was expected and that it is wider. If the amendments that I have proposed are taken into account, the bill is within the same parameters as the bill that was presented to the House of Commons in 1997, so I do not see how it can be regarded as having been made wider. It may have been reasonable to assume that my bill would cover the same ground as that bill, but my bill went a bit further; I accept that. In response to representations that were made when I appeared before the Rural Affairs Committee on 4 April, I said that I would propose amendments that would remove three specific aspects—rough shooting, rodents and rabbits, and falconry—that were addressed by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. It is wrong to suggest, as Mike Rumbles did, that the bill is "completely flawed" as a result of those amendments. Is Mike Rumbles saying that he would otherwise have been in favour of the bill? I suspect not. It is hyperbole to say that the bill is fundamentally flawed because of those amendments. That is not the case.

It is not true that I am saying something different from what I said on 4 April. I do not think that I could have been clearer about my intentions when introducing the amendments. I may be a victim of my own honesty—I was trying to help the committee by describing the form that I intended the bill to take. I could have kept quiet.

The decision on how much oral evidence to take is entirely a matter for the committee, but I endorse a point that was made, I think, by Richard Lochhead: much of the written evidence was fairly similar, so the committee could focus on the various strands. In response to what Elaine Murray said, it would be possible not to invite the organisations that are concerned with the parts of the bill on which I have said I will lodge amendments.

I have another reason for hoping that the bill will be given the opportunity to run its course. As you know, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee has begun taking evidence on the bill. At its meeting this morning, the committee asked that a Queen's Counsel's advice be taken on the bill's compliance with the European convention on human rights. I understand that a report on that aspect will be given to a future meeting of the committee. It would be odd if the lead committee decided not to take oral evidence when one of the secondary committees was doing so.

I have made my main points and I appreciate being given the opportunity to do so. I think that a procedural attempt is being made to restrict the scrutiny that will be given to the bill, and I regret that. The Parliament will have the opportunity to cast its mind over the bill, but I hope that that opportunity will follow a full stage 1 process. That is what is intended for all bills that pass through the Parliament. I ask the committee to go ahead with that process.

I would not like the committee to be unintentionally misled. I am sure Mike Watson would agree that many amendments can be made to the bill as it proceeds through Parliament. He referred to the Minister for Justice presenting hundreds of amendments to one bill, but those amendments were technical in nature. We are asked today to consider the general principles of the bill. If the bill is agreed at stage 1, its general principles cannot be amended; that is the point that I have been making quite clearly. It would be misleading to suggest to the committee that we can amend the bill later. I ask for your guidance, convener; is that correct?

I am unable to give that guidance without taking advice.

How does one define the general principles of the bill, so that we know whether we agree with them? Are they what Mike Watson thinks are the general principles of his bill?

The general principles of the bill are set out on the face of the bill. It would be

"An Act of the Scottish Parliament to protect wild mammals from being hunted with dogs; and for connected purposes."

Those are the general principles of the bill and they would remain, subject to amendment. Mike Rumbles is correct to say that the general principles of the bill could not be amended, but any amendments to the bill would be acceptable as long as they accorded with those general principles.

Mike Watson said that the committee had the option of not taking evidence on amendments to the bill that he might lodge at a later stage. However, there is no guarantee that an amendment will be accepted, even though that might be highly likely. The committee must, therefore, take evidence, particularly on a bill such as this, which—regardless of one's views—seeks to take away rights that people have enjoyed for hundreds of years. That means that we must be very thorough in our investigations and evidence taking, should we choose that route.

Strictly speaking, what Alex Fergusson has just said might be correct. However, no one has written to me—and, like other members, I have received a good few letters on this subject—to ask me to include rough shooting, to add rodents and rabbits or to ensure that falconry is mentioned. I would be interested to hear whether other members have received such requests, but I do not think that there is any possibility of further measures of the sort that have been mentioned being included after stage 2.

Is it possible to take evidence at stage 2? Mike Watson said that we should put off taking evidence on the parts of the bill that he is seeking to amend until they have been amended and that we should concentrate our evidence at stage 1 on the other parts of the bill.

It is possible for us to take evidence before dealing with amendments at stage 2.

The recommendation is that evidence on the amendments should be taken at stage 2. That would make it possible to carry out a focused stage 1 examination of the basic principles of the bill and the contradictions that it contains, and to take supplementary evidence at stage 2.

I support Elaine Murray's position. We need to have a focused scrutiny process at stage 1 that deals with the main principles of the bill. That does not involve consideration of every possible amendment or implication of the bill. We need to identify the main parameters of what is proposed.

I do not accept Alasdair Morgan's point that there needs to be a balance between oral and written evidence. People submit written evidence so that the information that they have can be recorded. Every member of the committee has a right to read that, and I hope that they will have done so.

We must be clear on the fact that our task is to produce a report on the main principles of the bill at the end of stage 1. We do not have to deal with every dot and comma of everything that anyone might want to say about it. I have been involved in the scrutiny of two bills, and in each case we have taken oral evidence from groups of people who could be expected to provide clarification on the general principles of the bill. The point is not to take oral evidence from everybody who has an interest in it.

I should point out that after stage 1, amendments that would undermine the general principles of the bill would be inadmissible.

That is the ruling that I was asking for, as that is what I understand. It is essential that the committee should be clear about that. We cannot amend the general principles of the bill after stage 1.

I will make my point briefly, as I think that we are going round the houses a bit. I am worried that not taking much oral evidence or specifically excluding certain parties from oral evidence would leave us open to the accusation from those who do not want the bill to be passed in any shape or form of not being a listening committee or a listening Parliament, and of railroading through legislation without proper consultation. That charge might be invalid, but it would be levelled against us. We should be aware of that possibility.

That charge could be levelled against us if we took the alternative route.

In paragraph 9 of the guidance, the convener states:

"If the Parliament decided, at the conclusion of that debate, to agree to the general principles of the Bill, the Committee would still be able to take oral evidence on the Bill, concentrating then on the practical implications that may impact upon amendments to be considered at stage 2."

The objections to the bill relate to its practical implications as well as the general principles. I am trying to show that we are not precluded from taking oral evidence at stage 2. That means that we can proceed on the basis of the written evidence that we have received. I do not understand why there is any objection to that.

I do not want to go round the houses, but it is important that we submit an informed stage 1 report to the Parliament, whether we are recommending acceptance of the general principles of the bill or rejection of the bill. We must make a clear statement, and we need to do the work that allows us to do that. Without detailed information, the Parliament may simply approve the bill at stage 1.

Do you not believe that we have enough information?

No.

Mike Rumbles referred to paragraph 9 of the guidance and its suggestion that we take oral evidence on the practical implications of the bill. He is suggesting that people object only to those practical implications. In my constituency, there are many people on both sides of the argument, and some object to the general principles of the bill. It is those that we would be considering at stage 1.

I do not disagree with that.

Given the discussion that has taken place, it would be appropriate for us to move to a decision. We should have a division and make it clear what we are dividing on. Would members be prepared to decide by a show of hands or would they prefer a roll-call vote?

By a show of hands.

So that we can be absolutely sure what we are voting on, I will read out the alternatives. Are we content to choose between options A and B as presented?

Members indicated agreement.

Option A is as follows. First, we would allocate time at one or two meetings to discuss and agree the main issues arising from written evidence. Next, we would identify the issues to be resolved using oral evidence sessions and the witnesses to be called to give evidence. We would hope to do that around the end of this month. After that, we would allocate evidence sessions according to the number and variety of issues identified. Because we took evidence first from Mike Watson, our next evidence session might be devoted to an examination of the case against the bill. We could then hear from supporters of the bill and other parties who might be able to give a balanced view. That could be done between October and December. We would then allocate one or more meetings to discussion of the issues and consideration of a draft report in December or January.

Option B is to allocate one or two meetings to discussing and agreeing the main issues arising from written evidence and to drawing conclusions from that. That could be done at the end of this month. We would then consider a draft report based on written evidence and the views of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which will be available in late October. After that, we would move to a stage 1 debate in November, subject to the decision of the Parliamentary Bureau. If the general principles of the bill were agreed to, the bill would be referred back to the committee. Further investigation of its detailed implications could be carried out from December onwards.

There is a choice between option A and option B.

Does Des have a question?

I am not sure that I agree with option A, as presented. My view is that we should decide whether we agree to take oral evidence on the general principles of the bill. That seems to me to be the fundamental difference between the two options. The committee might want to discuss in some detail how to go about taking oral evidence. I do not accept what is said in the second bullet point under the heading, "The ‘normal' route", at paragraph 11 of the guidance. The fundamental issue is whether we should take oral evidence. I think that we should divide on that point.

In a spirit of willingness, I acknowledge that Des McNulty's suggestion is quite appropriate. The fundamental issue is whether we should proceed to take oral evidence.

In the light of my previous comments, I do not think that the option A route would have to be as protracted as indicated in the paper. Des McNulty is right: the question is whether we want to produce a normal stage 1 report, having taken oral evidence.

If committee members agree, we will take the options and—[Interruption.] We will treat the recommendations as guidelines, and divide on the basis of—

No. The simple issue is whether we go for oral evidence or whether we go straight to a written report. Those are the options between which committee members want to choose.

The question is whether the committee wishes to take further oral evidence before coming to a conclusion.

We have not heard any oral evidence.

To clarify the point, I repeat that the question now is whether the committee wishes to take further oral evidence before coming to a conclusion.

For

Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)

Against

Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Therefore, the committee has determined that it wishes to take further oral evidence before reaching a conclusion. Do members wish to discuss the timetable or the procedure that they wish to follow?

I would like to come to a close as it is after 5 o'clock.

We have one agenda item that must be dealt with today, as it was carried over from last week.

Given that the paper circulated to us indicated that there was contradictory evidence on some of the basic facts, is it possible to distil the most basic questions? We could concentrate our evidence sessions on those questions. While I am anxious that we do not make the procedure protracted, there might be obvious issues that arise from the SPICe paper on which we wish to take oral evidence and to which we might wish to return at a future meeting.

There are references to such issues in the SPICe evaluation paper. Do you mean issues that are over and above those contained in that paper?

Rather than make a decision about that right now, we might wish to reflect on the contents of that paper and select a few key issues on which to take oral evidence.

Do we want to return to that at next week's meeting, to discuss the timetable?

Members indicated agreement.