THE way Holyrood passes legislation is facing its biggest shake-up since the creation of the Parliament in 1999.

At the centre of a review by a Holyrood committee will be the crucial final phase of law-making which has seen bad laws voted through by MSPs baffled by what is going on after of a swathe of last-minute amendments.

Holyrood is a one-chamber Parliament with a three-stage process. A designated lead committee looks at the general principles of a Bill, taking public evidence, before the Chamber votes on that. There is heavy emphasis on the second stage where committees look in more detail at the legislation and iron out potential faults.

But the third stage in the main chamber leading to a final vote has sometimes been chaotic, with hordes of last-minute amendments from Government and Opposition and serial votes where it is by not clear MSPs know what they are voting on.

This lack of a brake on the sometimes messy final stage, with no time built in for pause, is to be addressed in the inquiry by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

New convener Stewart ­Stevenson said: "This committee believes now is the right time to look at the effectiveness of each of the main stages of a parliamentary bill. In short we are asking: 'Is the legislative process fit for purpose?'

"Past evidence to the SPPA Committee suggests there are issues over the transparency of amendments and whether the effect of late amendments are always properly understood, especially when there has been limited scope for proper scrutiny."

He added: "Voices inside and outwith Holyrood have highlighted issues around timescale, particularly at stage three, but our remit will enable us to look across the public bill process.

"Overall, we will consider what scope is there to improve our legislative process."

Questions the review will ask include:

l Does the three-stage process give legislative scrutiny fit for purpose?

l How effective are procedures and time-scales for each of the main stages?

l How much does the current process encourage engagement from interested parties?

l Does the stage one procedure, with a lead committee considering the general principles of a bill, provide for adequate scrutiny?

l Could changes improve the stage one scrutiny of public bills?

l Are changes needed to the deadlines for lodging amendments in stages two and three?

l Is the way amendments are considered transparent and understandable?

The Holyrood system is often praised for its pre-legislative scrutiny and committee system which, unlike that at Westminster, does not have separate standing and select committees so in theory members are fully familiar with the issues when they consider legislation.

Some changes could be made under existing rules, with an unused provision allowing stage three to be split between a day of amendments and a final vote.