Procedures Committee, 25 Oct 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Official Report 179KB pdf

---

Bill Timetables

Item 4 is on a paper that I have circulated, although I do not intend to ask members to talk about it today. I wrote it some time ago, before I became convener. The paper sets out a view that I think quite a lot of people take, and it deals with a point that is relevant to the discussions and round-table meetings that we are going to have. If anyone wants to say that my paper is rubbish, they are welcome to do so. I am aware that many of the issues have been discussed by the committee in the past, but I thought that I would contribute my tuppence-worth. We can put it in the bin or we can discuss it—along with everything else—at some future date.

I do not know whether you circulated the paper to members previously, but I have certainly read it before. In our inquiry into the timescales and stages of bills, which took place before you joined the committee, we discussed a great many issues concerning the timing of the legislative process. I do wish to go back through all that again until we see how the new processes kick in.

I thought that the paper was very useful. I noted that the committee's report recommended that more time should be allowed for stage 3 proceedings. It appears that there is still a problem that is worth raising with the parliamentary authorities.

There is a problem with stage 3. However, as a Parliament, we determine the timetable by voting on it. There is no procedural solution to the problem with stage 3; the procedure is in place. The solution must be a political one. Whether people are prepared, if they feel that there is a need for more time, to vote against a timetabling motion that has been agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau will come out in the wash.

Having been through all this ad infinitum during our previous inquiry into the matter, I am very reluctant to go back into it. It is one thing to acknowledge that there is a problem with stage 3, but it is for the Parliamentary Bureau to find a solution to that problem.

I was a member of the bureau for two years and I can say that my experience of timetabling for stage 3 was that there was no malice involved and no intention to reduce the time available for debates. The timetabling issues were largely related to fitting in with decision time and the other things that Parliament aspires to achieve in timetabling and in its business overall.

The difficulty was in assessing how much time was required for specific issues. We had some success in my time on the bureau, which ended more than two years ago, in frontloading the timetabling motion so that more time than necessary was made available. That created some slack in the system.

There is an issue, although I do not think that it was created maliciously. It is just that we are finding it difficult to reconcile two competing priorities: the need for a controlled timetable so that we all understand where we will be at specific times; and the need to ensure that there is proper time for discussing important issues.

Timetabling will be discussed at various meetings, so we will hear what people have to say about it.