Subordinate Legislation Committee, 27 Apr 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Official Report 83KB pdf

---

Procedures Committee Inquiry

We move to consider the Procedures Committee inquiry into the timescales and stages of bills. Three points have been raised. The first is about the length of time between stages 2 and 3. On one occasion, we had only one meeting between the two stages in order to discuss the bill and we must decide whether we want to ensure that we have two meetings.

The second point regards amendments at stage 3, and whether we should formalise the understanding that we are given notice of such amendments.

The third point is about the provision of Executive memoranda. They are useful to us, but sometimes we receive them rather late. The suggestion is that, because of their importance, we create a more formal mechanism for the provision of memoranda to us, and also for the provision of a memorandum as it is amended through the bill's progress. I believe that Christine May has a fourth idea.

Yes. It reflects something that you said earlier and is about the level of resource that is available to the Executive to carry out this work. As I have said, the committee is an essential part of the Parliament's legislative process. If there is insufficient resource available to the Executive to carry out the detailed work that is required, it is more difficult for the Executive to work to timescales. There has been some evidence of that in our receiving defective drafting and in material coming to us late on in the process. It is worth raising that issue in this context, so that it is in the Parliament's ken through the Procedures Committee's inquiry as well as through the work that we are doing.

I think that we are all agreed on that.

Members indicated agreement.