Explanatory statements on amendments:
feedback on second pilot (P 58, 2007-08)
CO-ORDINATED BY THE PUBLIC BILL OFFICE
BACKGROUND
In its First Report of Session 2005-06, The
Legislative Process, the Modernisation Committee concluded
that Members preparing for debates in Public Bill Committees would
be assisted if they were allowed to table a brief explanatory
statement with each amendment or set of amendments. Following
an initial pilot on the Legal Services Bill [Lords] the
Procedure Committee concluded that a second pilot should take
place during the 2007-08 session, on the basis of three or
more Bills in Public Bill Committee at the same time. The bills
selected for this second pilot were the Energy Bill, the Pensions
Bill and the Planning Bill.
This note summarises feedback on the second
pilot from the Public Bill Office, Editorial Supervisor of the
Vote, Parliamentary Counsel Office and relevant government departments.
TAKE UP
AND USEFULNESS
Government departments: Explanatory statements
were tabled to all Government amendments on all three bills. Officials
saw explanatory statements as a helpful opportunity to explain
proposed Government amendments to the Pensions Bill. They found
statements of significant benefit in clarifying the purpose of
opposition amendments and improving the focus of debate by helping
Ministers to respond to the substantive issues being raised.
Opposition/back bench: Members saw tabling
explanatory statements to their own amendments as an additional
burden and take up by opposition and back bench members was low.
One Member said that he found explanatory statements useful in
understanding the intent of Government amendments.
Officials: Parliamentary Counsel on the
Energy Bill found that the value of statements was marginal because
the 50 word limit meant that the extent of their explanation
was often inadequate. Some statements on opposition amendments
were materially inaccurate. Clerks did not notice any specific
references to explanatory statements in debate and did not perceive
any difference in the quality or focus of debate in Committee.
IMPACT ON
RESOURCES
Government departments saw a small increase
in workload as worthwhile given the advantages they derived from
the inclusion of explanatory statements.
Parliamentary Counsel (PCO) found that
the need to edit statements supplied by departments (for substance
and length), insert statements into amendment documents and cross-reference
these as necessary, added significantly to their workload.
The Public Bill Office did not find that
explanatory statements created any significant additional workload,
because of the low number of statements tabled by opposition and
back-bench Members. In some cases statements were of assistance
in grouping amendments for debate.
The Editorial Supervisor of the Vote
(ESVO) found that their workload was increased by approximately
one minute for each government explanatory statement and five
minutes for each opposition/back bench explanatory statement.
There was an increase in the amount of paper used for the printing
of amendment papers.
June 2008
| 
