Page 5102 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 12 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: I think a break-up would be important, although, Mr Collaery, I would hate to see you or your staff waste the time on it, because I think that by and large we are aware that the majority of Bills are taking an appropriate amount of time. But there are too many - and I think this is Mr Stevenson's point - that are going through just that bit too quickly. That is really what we are talking about, and I think that we should have a general principle to follow to make sure that they do have the exposure.
Mr Stevenson also mentioned making known to the public which Bills are being dealt with, and there may be some sense in attempting to ensure that. In the vast majority of cases, I understand that, as Bills are tabled, a press release goes out with them and in fact the public's attention is drawn to those. I think that is an appropriate way to deal with it. With reference to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, one of the things that I have found difficult - and I do not blame the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for this - is that often we get the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee very shortly before we are due to deal with the actual legislation. That, of course, reflects the pressure on that committee, and I in no way negative the very good reports we get from that committee. I know the pressure that is on them as well. The problem is in how we are trying to push through those Bills.
The quality of the reports of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is certainly of a very high standard and I find them extremely helpful in my own reading of the Bills. I congratulate each member of that Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Unfortunately Ms Maher is not here today to hear that, but no doubt she will read it in the Hansard.
Mr Duby: I will make sure of that.
MR MOORE: I thank Mr Duby, who will make sure of that for me. The principle that we are dealing with is quite clear. We have a problem in that we must ensure that these Bills do have adequate consultation, and adequate time for research, drafting and discussion of the amendments, so that when amendments are put up they can be presented in writing before we deal with the Bill in the house, rather than being written on the run as in fact I was forced to do last night. Amendments could thus actually be dealt with in a much more bipartisan fashion.
It seems to me that Mr Stevenson has identified clearly a particular problem. I think perhaps it ought to be taken up by the Administration and Procedures Committee with a view to setting out a guideline - and I would expect bipartisan support for that - on how long we expect those Bills to sit on the table so that they can be dealt with on the floor of the Assembly. I think something quite concrete ought to come out of Mr Stevenson's suggestion, and I urge members of the Assembly to take it seriously and to see whether we can lift our game in this particular respect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .