Good afternoon. Welcome to the 10th meeting of the Justice 1 Committee in 2005. We have received apologies from Bruce McFee, but otherwise we have a full attendance. As usual, I ask everybody to switch off their mobile phones.
I suspect that I speak very much as we all feel. Given the difficulties that are involved and the time that it is taking for the Executive and its officials to bring forward the amendments, it will be difficult for us to understand the amendments and confirm to ourselves whether they are satisfactory in the couple of days—perhaps a week if we are very lucky—that the timetable appears to suggest that we will have. The Executive must think carefully about the implications of that for its likelihood of success in having the amendments accepted at stage 2. I certainly would not be comfortable with supporting an amendment at stage 2 that I am not fully satisfied with, given that there are clearly difficulties. Ministers and officials ought to note that point. The committee has long been promised the details and it is difficult to expect us to understand what is clearly a complex issue in such a short space of time.
I agree. We have been promised the amendments and were aware of them as early as stage 1, but to date nothing has been forthcoming. Other members of the committee and I have a grave concern that if the amendments are complex, we should have sufficient time properly to look into the various issues that surround them, on the basis that we are here to make good law as opposed to doing what is expedient. That is worth recording and conveying to the minister.
Okay. I anticipated the feelings of the committee and wrote to the Minister for Parliamentary Business to make the point that the issue for us is time. We want to ensure that we are able to do a job by having enough time to consider changes to the bill. As other members have stated, the difficulty for us is that although we can shift things about, we will have only a short space of time at stage 2 in which to consider the amendments.