This is worth reading in full. Towards the end it says: "Once amendments have been considered, the entire parliament will hear stage three of the legislation, which is likely to take place before the Christmas recess."
www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23098928.holyrood-accused-rushing-trying-shut-debate-gender-reforms/
MSPs now have until Tuesday to table amendments to the bill at stage two, which will be considered by Holyrood’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.
But Conservative MSP Rachael Hamilton, who has already officially tabled amendments to the legislation, has claimed the scrutiny of the proposals is being rushed through.
Ms Hamilton has been accused of attempting to be "divisive" by the Scottish Greens.
Raising a point of order with presiding officer Alison Johnstone in Holyrood, Ms Hamilton said: “Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, members were informed that the deadline for amendments at stage two of the gender recognition bill would be just two weeks after the stage one vote.
“We were told that there would just be two sittings to consider the amendments – that’s unacceptable presiding officer.
“It is far too little time and I’m concerned by the quality of information that I was given by the convener when I questioned the decision on Tuesday.”
She added: “This looks like an attempt to limit or even shut down debate on a very complex and contentious bill.
“Rushing this legislation is wrong, when fundamental issues of women’s rights and trans rights are at stake.
“Can I ask you, presiding officer, what steps are available to members who wish to prevent this bill being rushed through with very little debate? What action can you personally take to ensure that the timetable for the rest of the bill is not limited?
“Do you agree that a topic as sensitive as this, the Scottish Parliament should seek to protect and enhance its reputation by scrutinizing legislation properly for as long as is necessary.”
Ms Johnstone told Ms Hamilton that the issue was “a matter for the parliamentary bureau”.