Agenda item 2 is the proposed civil appeals (Scotland) bill. I welcome Adam Ingram, who is the proposer of the bill, and Claire Menzies Smith, who is from the non-Executive bills unit. Members have been issued with a paper concerning the bill. Adam Ingram is here solely to discuss the technical issue of consultation; I remind members that the committee will consider only his statement of reasons, not the principles or content of the bill. Do you have any further points that you would like to make to the committee?
Not really, convener. The bill was one of those that were caught up in the changeover in procedures with which one or two members of the committee might be familiar. The original proposal was out to consultation over last summer, and the purpose of today's technical session is to get the committee's approval of my reasons for not putting the proposal out to consultation again.
Thank you. Do members have any questions?
I do not know whether this is a declaration of interest, but I currently have a proposal for a member's bill out to consultation. Is there anything quantifiably different in this proposal from what was in the proposal that went out to consultation, and in which other bodies would, in your view, have an interest?
Not in my view. The area has been the subject of much consultation. There has been consultation on the United Kingdom Constitutional Reform Bill and we had the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry on that bill last year, as well as my consultation exercise. The subject has been well trawled.
The consultation paper that we have in front of us asked four questions. I understand why those questions are fairly broad, but would it help to ask more specific questions about the more specific proposal that you now have, rather than the four broad questions that were in the original consultation paper?
The next step for me is to work up the draft proposal to a final proposal. I want to take on board the responses that I have received—not just the nine responses that I got from the various bodies that returned detailed responses, but the evidence that has been referred to me by the likes of Lord Cullen, who has referred me to the evidence that he provided for the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry. I have a lot of material to use to refine the draft proposal into a final proposal.
Would you consider carrying out, if not a formal consultation process, an informal process of getting back in touch with those whom you consulted or who responded to the original proposal with regard to your more specific proposal?
I refer the matter to Claire Menzies Smith. [Interruption.] I am advised that, once the results of the analysis of the consultation are known, I can circulate them to get a further response.
The non-Executive bills unit will conduct an analysis of the consultation responses. Adam Ingram can draw his conclusions from those responses, and that information will be made public. Any issues that are drawn out—whether technical or legal—will be refined in the drafting of the bill, which will come back to the committee for scrutiny. The committee can then take evidence on the bill and will have a chance to go into the detail of the proposal at that point.
In fairness to Adam Ingram, we should make it clear that it is not that he has not consulted; the issue for the committee to consider is whether he should consult further. There is evidence of significant consultation.
Are the first four entries on the list of consultees four consultees or just two? I do not know whether you have a copy of the list.
There were 59 consultees.
The first name on the list is "Glasgow Caledonian University"; the second is "Department of Accountancy, Finance & Law"; the third is "The Robert Gordon University"; and the fourth is "Department of Law". I was just wondering whether they are the departments of those universities. You have counted them as four, rather than two. It is a minor point.
The proposals would probably go to different people within the bodies. I think that perhaps a mistake has been made. Sorry.
It makes the number 57 rather than 59.
That is a seismic shift.
The committee should be content with the statement of reasons; the bill should not need to proceed to further consultation. I take the point that Jeremy Purvis made. I hope that, in developing the bill, Adam Ingram will adopt the inclusive style that Jeremy Purvis seeks, particularly as he works through some of the detail. I recommend that we say that we are content with the reasons that Adam Ingram has supplied for not consulting further.
I am grateful to you. Is that agreed?
In that case, the committee is satisfied with the level of consultation that has been undertaken. I am sorry for keeping you waiting on the sidelines, Adam. The discussion was interesting; I do not think that we have ever had a member's bill to consider before. The novelty made it worth while.
Previous
Licensing (Scotland) Bill