Procedures Committee, 24 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 24, 2002

Official Report 123KB pdf

---

Standing Orders (Private Legislation)

The first item concerns private legislation. Members have a paper from the non-Executive bills unit. David Cullum, the head of the unit, is with us this morning. I invite him to introduce his paper.

First, I will give some background to the subject. The standing orders that relate to private legislation were agreed by the Parliament in November 2000, following a Procedures Committee report. Since then, the non-Executive bills unit has worked with promoters and parliamentary agents to consider, review and update the procedures where necessary. Most recently, three determinations that were made by the Presiding Officer have been amended to improve procedure.

Since late last year, we have been involved in discussions with the agents for the proposed railway bills. During those discussions, a number of issues came to light. If any of those railway bills are introduced in the current session, they will not complete their parliamentary passage before the dissolution of the Parliament. For that reason, it is necessary for the carry-forward provisions to be workable and practical. The suggestions that are contained in the paper allow for the carry-forward provisions to cover fees. We have also taken the opportunity to clarify the start and end point of the objection period. I am happy to answer questions.

It might be best if we turn to the annexe in which the proposed changes in standing orders are set out. The first proposal is for rule 9A.5 to be changed. The justification for the changes is offered in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the paper. Do we agree to the change to rule 9A.5?

Members indicated agreement.

The next change is to rule 9A.6 and deals with the tightening up of the objection period. The text of the change is set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the paper. The proposed change seems straightforward. Do we agree to the change to rule 9A.6?

Members indicated agreement.

The next change is to rule 9A.7, which sets out the fees on reintroduction. The proposed change, which David Cullum referred to in his opening remarks, is set out in the paper. Do we agree to that change to rule 9A.7?

Members indicated agreement.

The other proposed change to rule 9A.7 deals with the carry-forward and the objection period on reintroduction. Are we agreed to that final change to the standing orders?

Members indicated agreement.