Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Procedures Committee, 12 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 12, 2000


Contents


Timetables of Bills

The Convener:

The next item on the agenda is the timetabling of stages of bills. We are invited to commission an issues paper on the matters that have been raised by Sir David Steel and other members. An issue that was raised by Margaret Smith is also mentioned. We are invited to commission work on the issue. Are we happy to do that?

Will my suggestions also be considered?

I think that that is intended.

John Patterson:

On a previous occasion, the committee asked that Donald Gorrie's paper be sent to the bureau. That is in process now, so those points will be covered.

So long as my paper does not get lost somewhere.

John Patterson:

No; our eagle eyes have it in sight.

That is not a promise to agree with all your points, Donald, but we will consider them in the appropriate context.

Iain Smith:

Standing orders set down clearly the minimum period, not the maximum period, for the time between stages of a bill. The Executive would be concerned if the minimum time available were to be changed. However, by protocol and agreement the intention would be that three weeks would normally be the period between stage 2 and stage 3, rather than the two-week period that is set down in standing orders.

Tom McCabe has written to the convener to say that the Executive would like three sitting days to be the norm for the lodging of amendments, rather than the two days that are stipulated in standing orders.

Some of those changes can be made by agreement and protocol rather than by changes to standing orders. In deciding which changes have to be made, we should minimise loss of flexibility should there be a need, for some reason, to operate to a tighter timetable than we would hope to.

If members are happy with that, we will commission the report.

Members indicated agreement.