Justice 2 Committee, 30 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Official Report 203KB pdf

---

Procedures Committee Inquiry

The final item is the Procedures Committee's inquiry into the timescales and stages of bills. I have received a letter from Iain Smith, that committee's convener, which sets out the background to the inquiry. I forwarded the letter to our clerks with the suggestion that they circulate copies to members.

Given that conveners have until 5 May to submit a paper to the inquiry, we have quite a bit of time in hand. If members are agreeable, I suggest that we ask the clerks to draft a letter. I will be delighted to take into account any points that members might raise today. Subject to the draft letter being acceptable to the committee, we can despatch it to the Procedures Committee. Does any member have a point to raise?

I would like included in the letter a point concerning lodging of amendments. The timescale for lodging amendments can be pretty difficult for members, so it would be helpful for that issue to be examined, as it can be difficult for us to meet the deadlines.

I echo that.

It is a very good suggestion.

The burden that is placed on clerks when there is a large bill with numerous amendments is absolutely oppressive. I do not know how they cope with it. I agree that that is a very good suggestion.

Sometimes it is only at the end of the evidence-taking sessions that one knows what the questions are that one should have asked three weeks previously.

Would you like the amendments to be lodged first, Maureen? [Laughter.]

I am sure that all of us have had the experience of suddenly realising what the meat of the matter is and that one had been just pottering about in the first evidence-taking session. Sometimes it would be helpful to have earlier witnesses return so that we can question them again. Perhaps there should be a mechanism by which we could recall witnesses.

That is absolutely right. Given that we have no revising chamber, it is appropriate that we should positively scrutinise legislation. I support some of the comments that have been made about amendments. I think that the timetable for the lead committee at stage 1 is fine, but our experience shows that it is much more difficult for the secondary committee. I wonder whether we could do something to accommodate that suggestion. My last point is that the overall timetabling of bills should be determined by Parliament as a whole.

Those are helpful suggestions. In relation to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, I am aware that the timetabling for us was acute. I think that the Communities Committee also felt it to be acute because it had a huge body of evidence to take. I propose that the letter be drafted and brought before the committee for approval before being despatched to the convener of the Procedures Committee.

I thank members for their attendance today. Our next meeting, which is to be held on 20 April, has a very full agenda. All of us will be in sparkling form after the recess, so we will crack through the business.

We are grateful to the convener for pointing out the extent of the agenda.

Meeting closed at 15:59.