Memorandum submitted by Rt Hon Harriet
Harman QC MP, Leader of the House of Commons (P 69, 2007-08)
I am writing in response to your Committee's
review of the operation of the further experiments which have
taken place this year for the inclusion of explanatory statements
on amendments tabled in public bill committees. I know you have
written to all Members asking them for observations. I am grateful
to you and to Sir Alan and the other members of the Chairmen's
Panel for enabling the two experiments—covering one bill
last session and three bills this session—to take place.
It is clear that the possibility of tabling
explanatory statements has been of some assistance, both to Government
and to non-Government members of public bill committees. Bill
teams and Parliamentary Counsel have reported that members of
the committees have made use of the statements and that statements
on non-Government amendments have helped to clarify for officials
the intended effect of amendments ahead of meetings.
But it is also the case that there is a significant
use of resources involved, both within Government and for the
House services (though these may be largely absorbed within existing
duties and processes and not generally separately quantifiable).
There is therefore a question to be addressed as to whether the
use made of the facility is properly cost-effective. I will be
most interested in your Committee's views, including on whether
any estimate can be made of the specific costs involved. It could
be therefore that a further experiment would be appropriate for
all sides to take a more detailed look at the system.
If this were done, it would be helpful if your
Committee could consider again what steps might be taken to increase
tabling of explanatory statements in respect of non-Government
amendments. While it was always understood that the Government
would expect to table such statements, there is a case for relaxing
this approach in cases where the statement have been explained
in other ways (such as in a Ministerial letter to the Opposition
spokesman and committee members). But it would be useful if your
Committee were to examine the extent of tabling of statements
by other Members and whether there are ways of increasing the
rate of tabling. I recognise that there would be possible objections
to making the tabling of such statements mandatory, since it would
be possible objections to making the tabling of such statements
mandatory, since it could place an undue pressure on House officials
in deciding whether a given statement was sufficient, and indeed
in some cases they may come under pressure to draft the statements
themselves, which would not be appropriate.
But I do think that the system will not be achieving
its full potential benefits if the obligation rests solely with
the Government.
July 2008
| 
