Select committees and amendments
3. Under current rules and conventions, amendments
to Bills can only be tabled by individual Members; even Government
amendments have to be tabled in this form, rather than on behalf
of the Government as a whole. The only proceeding in which a
Committee is given a special status in terms of tabling or moving
Motions is the nomination of members to select committees by the
Committee of Selection, where under Standing Order No. 121(2)
such motions are tabled by the Chairman of the Committee "on
behalf of the Committee of Selection" and may be moved by
any member of the Committee. If a select committee agrees that
it wishes to table an amendment to a bill, the only evidence is
the supporters list printed beside the amendment which would then
show the names of the individual members of the committee. As
Mr Dismore pointed out in his letter, "There is no indication
on the Order Paper that the amendments have been tabled by the
Committee".[3]
4. There are several reasons why select committees
might wish to table amendments and to indicate clearly that those
amendments reflect the collective opinion of the committee. The
Chairman of the Liaison Committee pointed out that "committees
may on occasion wish to record their view in respect of a bill
in a way that could be legislatively effective. They might have
reported on a policy area before the bill had been presented,
or have examined the bill itself in draft or in presented form".[4]
Mr Dismore explained that the Joint Committee on Human Rights
had published specific amendments to Bills to give effect to recommendations
in reports arising both from their scrutiny of specific Government
bills and from thematic inquiries or those relating to scrutiny
of the Government's response to adverse judgements of the European
Court of Human Rights or declarations of incompatibility by the
UK courts.[5]
5. There are also several reasons why the House might
wish to permit select committees to table amendments in this way.
It has the advantage of clarity in that anyone reading the amendment
paper could immediately see that a particular amendment originated
with a select committee. This would assist both the House and
individual members in their scrutiny of bills. The change would
also enhance the role of select committees in giving them a unique
status in tabling amendments which would fit well with the current
moves towards improving scrutiny of the executive and raising
the profile of the committees.
6. On the other hand, Mr Dismore's proposals are
not without disadvantages. The tabling of amendments in this
way would have implications for individual members of a select
committee who might disagree with the proposed amendment, either
at the time of its adoption by the committee or afterwards. A
Member cannot be bound to support a motion, even where his signature
has been appended to it. On the other hand, it would not be helpful
to the standing of a committee if members of that committee consistently
spoke and voted against amendments officially tabled on its behalf.
Safeguards would have to be built into the system by laying down
clear guidelines to be followed in agreeing amendments in order
to remove all danger of a committee exposing its internal divisions
either in debate or on the order paper if a minority of the committee
were to table a rival amendment (see paragraphs 14 to 17 below).
7. The question for us, and the House, is whether
such a change is desirable or necessary. The Clerk of Bills suggested
that "There is no difficulty at the moment in identifying
an amendment tabled in the names of all the Members on a certain
select committee. As one Member may give notice on behalf of other
Members, if he or she has their permission, it is already possible
for a Chairman to table an Amendment in the names of the all the
Members of a select committee."[6]
However, this presupposes that the names of the members of a particular
committee are instantly recognisable as such to all readers of
the Order Paper. In addition, where other names are added to
an amendment, that recognition factor is further diluted. We
agree rather with the then Deputy Leader of the House, Chris Bryant
MP, who argued that: "it is not readily apparent to anybody
who is unfamiliar with the membership of the committee when [an
amendment has been tabled to which all members of the committee
have put their name], and I think that a method of signalling
the committee's involvement on the Amendment Paper would be helpful
for Members and the wider public".[7]
3 Ev 1 Back
4
Ev 1 Back
5
Ev 1 Back
6
Ev 2 Back
7
Ev 3 Back
| 
