Procedures Committee, 14 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Official Report 153KB pdf

---

Standing Orders (20-day Rule)

Agenda item 2 is the 20-day rule. At a previous meeting, we were given the impression that the Subordinate Legislation Committee was in one corner, the other committees were in the other corner and there was a sort of confrontation. However, the paper shows that that is not the case. A late paper has been circulated with a comment from the convener of the Communities Committee, which we can take into account.

The clerks' note seems to narrow down the matter. In the light of some other committees' concerns, the Subordinate Legislation Committee has said that having 22 days instead of 20 days would accommodate its timetable and would give it the two meetings that it wants to discuss an issue. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has said that it would be content if, instead of our inserting "normally" in rule 10.3.2, the limit were to be changed from 20 days to 22 days. The responses from the other committees suggest that committees could live with that. Is that a reasonable and simple solution to the problem?

Under the heading "Additional Time", the SLC states in its letter to the committee:

"we are seeking an additional 1-2 days, and only when exceptional circumstances arise."

That would seem to be covered by the fifth bullet point under paragraph 9 of the clerks' note, which suggests that we

"qualify the 20-day limit with ‘normally' and add an upper limit of … 22 … days."

I think that we should still say that the limit is normally 20 days, as we do not want things to drift. It would be appropriate to allow the Subordinate Legislation Committee 22 days in exceptional circumstances.

I think that we can satisfy the different angles that members are coming from. Thank you.