Explanatory statements on amendments to bills - Procedure Committee Contents


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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 2 March 2010