Official Report 227KB pdf
We move to agenda item 3. I move motion S1M-1765,
Motion agreed to.
I also confirm that consideration of stage 2 starts on 4 April 2001 and that the time scale for completion of stage 2 is the week beginning 14 May 2001. I ask members to confirm that they are happy with that timetable. Before we get into a debate on whether members are happy with it, I say to Brian Adam that I have in mind a fairly broad definition of happy.
The answer is, "No", especially as the recess takes place during that time. I anticipate that there will be quite a lot of amendments.
I expect that there will be, but I give members an assurance that each amendment will be given consideration. We might have to look at how we manage our time, but we are obliged to get through all competent amendments that are lodged. The committee has to agree to the timetable.
Before we do so, I would like the convener's assurance that, if we find that we have a number of amendments and we are struggling to keep to the timetable, we can seek to review it at that point.
The Parliamentary Bureau has lodged a motion outlining the timetable for the Parliament to decide on that motion on Thursday. If the timetable had to be changed, that would be a matter for the bureau. However, if the committee wanted to say something, we would have a powerful voice.
Brian Adam raised the matter at the bureau yesterday. The view was that we should adhere to the timetable but, if difficulties arose, the opportunity to revisit the situation would be made available.
If that is agreed, can we move on?
On that point, is there likely to be a statement to that effect before tomorrow's motion is put to the Parliament. A number of members have concerns about the time scale on what is a large bill, and it would be helpful if such a statement was made.
My understanding is that there is a procedure for such motions. As all members are aware of it, it would not be re-stated. If we are anxious about the timetable, we have channels through which we can raise those concerns. I do not think that, as a matter of course, such changes would be raised, because things change fairly speedily in the Parliament.
Is the convener saying that that reassurance will definitely not be in the motion?
I suggest that we move on.