Members' Responses on Explanatory Statements
(P 73, 2007-08)
Sir Nicholas Winterton DL MP
Thank you for your letter of 8 July about
explanatory statements on amendments in Public Bill Committees.
As lead Chairman of the Pensions Bill Committee, I must advise
you that I personally found these explanatory statements to be
very helpful in understanding amendments and their purpose.
I must advise you that explanatory statements
were mainly provided by the Government and by the Liberal Democrats.
Few, if any, such statements were provided by Her Majesty's Opposition
on the Committee.
On balance, while I accept that there is a cost
to explanatory statements, I believe that their use helpful.
July 2008
Sir John Butterfill FRICS MP
I thank you for your letter of 10 July.
I must say that, in connection with the Planning
Bill which I chaired, I found the new procedure and explanatory
statements to be most helpful.
July 2008
Steve Webb MP
Thank you for your e-mail about explanatory
statements on amendments in public bill committees.
My reflection on the process is that it is largely
a waste of time! In the energy bill committee I think I am right
in saying that the opposition parties did not do this—partly
because we have such limited resources it is hard enough to draft
amendments that are in order and achieve what you want, without
the added burden of writing explanatory text.
Explanations of Govt. amendments are helpful,
but ministers often write letters to explain their amendments
at committee stage, so I'm not sure what voluntary explanatory
statements really add.
July 2008
Dr Nick Palmer MP
Greg Knight asked for comments on this pilot.
I think it was an unambiguous success and should be made general.
July 2008
Alison Seabeck MP
Thank you for your letter regarding the pilot
on explanatory statement on Amendments.
Like most Members I have sat on a number of
committees and whilst some of the subject matter is straight forward
in others it is very technical. I therefore would support the
extension of the explanatory statements for amendments because
when dealing with unfamiliar or highly specialised areas they
can be useful. I also suspect that for Opposition parties who
will not have the benefit of the Minister's knowledge based on
his or her civil service briefings, that these notes are of additional
value. Government Party MPs do have the ability to more easily
'pick a Minister's brain', although I have to say that most Ministers
are keen to make themselves available to all parties should they
have concerns.
I suspect that there is an additional cost for
the work necessary to produce these briefings and you will have
to take a view on whether or not this is a price worth paying
but I would say that for me they were useful.
July 2008
Jonathan Djanogly MP
Generally speaking I think Statements have been
helpful, although this would be a question better answered by
a Committee backbencher who may not be so aware of the detail,
as the person leading.
They are probably also helpful for members of
the public.
July 2008
Dr Brian Iddon
In response to your letter of 10 July on
"Explanatory Statements on Amendments in Public Bill Committees"
I was not aware that this procedure had been used during passage
of the Energy Bill through its Standing Committee—1 was
a Member of that Committee. However, we did have several sessions
at which outside organisations and individuals were able to make
their views known to the Committee on the content of the Bill
before we scrutinised it. Most Members of the Committee felt that
was a useful exercise.
July 2008
Mr John Greenway MP
I though the use of explanatory statements extremely
helpful and contributed significantly to achieving a better understanding
of the issues. This was particularly important for such a complex
subject, as pensions! Also the evidence sessions at the commencement
of the committee stage were equally beneficial.
If you check the Hansard of the last committee
hearing, on I believe 19 or 21 February, you will be
able to pick up a number of positive comments about the process.
July 2008
Charles Hendry MP
Thank you for your letter about explanatory
statements about amendments to Public Bill Committees. My experience
of the Energy Bill suggests that these are of moderate value,
as most of the amendments put forward were relatively self explanatory
in terms of what they were seeking to achieve. Inevitably, it
was a resource which was more generally used by the Government
than by opposite parties or Backbenchers as the Government has
the necessary resource to take full advantage of them.
Separately, I did find the evidence sessions
of immense value and this is undoubtedly a very significant improvement
to the workings of a Public Bill Committee.
July 2008
Mr Henry Bellingham MP
My own view is that the explanatory statements
that myself and Jonathan Djanogly added to amendments that we
tabled on the Legal Services Bill were indeed worthwhile and of
value.
I do feel that it would be a mistake to make
this anything other than a voluntary exercise but certainly it
should be part of a best practice regularly implemented by Ministers.
July 2008
Helen Goodman MP
Thank you for your letter of 10 July about
the pilot of Explanatory Statements on Amendments in Public Bill
Committees. You asked for comments on the pilot, particularly
in the light of my experience on the committee for the Legal Services
Bill.
I must admit that, even allowing for the fact
that I was a member of that Committee over a year ago, I have
no recollection of the explanatory statements. This in itself
might be helpful for you in considering whether to implement these
explanatory statements more widely.
July 2008
Paul Rowen MP
Thank you for your letter of 10 June 2008 asking
for my comments regarding the above pilots, which were run in
the Pensions Bill in which I was a member.
You asked for my views on how I felt that this
particular pilot had worked. Can I say that I found that the information,
whilst superficially helpful, did lack the detail required in
order to have a fuller understanding of what the movers of any
particular amendments might have been planning. I do feel that
this is a difficulty that cannot necessarily be resolved by any
of these particular statements as it is impossible for any mover
of amendment to provide the detail required in order to furnish
others with information on what lies behind the amendment. In
my view much of this comes from a developing understanding, during
the course of the discussion during a committee, as to the particular
concerns or issues that movers of amendments may wish to raise.
As one who has moved, spoken and been involved in discussions
of the committee, I can fully understand this. Therefore whilst
supporting the principle of explanatory statements I am not sure
that they necessarily do everything that Members would wish them
to do.
I hope that this answers the points that you
raise. If you wish to discuss this further please don't hesitate
to get in touch.
August 2008
Mr David Burrowes MP
At the time of the Legal Services Bill I was
a Back Bench Member and found the explanatory statements helpful.
The Legal Services Bill was in places complex and the explanatory
statements helped avoid the Public Bill Committee sessions becoming
a preserve of the front bench. I felt the explanatory statements
helped to encourage greater participation from the Committee,
helped the Member tabling the amendment to focus on the amendment's
purpose and perhaps provided a useful reminder when it came to
speak against the amendment!
The Legal Services Bill attracted a relatively
large amount of interest and attendance at the Public Bill Committees
and the explanatory statements no doubt assisted in providing
an early understanding of the amendments.
July 2008
Mr Elfyn Llqwyd MP
I thank you for your letter of the 10 July
regarding the Explanatory Statements on Amendments in Public Bill
Committees.
I found it very helpful and I believe it would
be useful innovation.
September 2008
Mr Nigel Waterson MP
Thank you for your letter of 10 July. As
you rightly point out, the Pensions Bill on which I was the Opposition
Spokesman was one of the first Bill committees to pilot the new
system.
I think my broad conclusion is that this innovation
was useful. However, I think it should remain as an option rather
than being obligatory. I say this because the preparation of these
explanatory notes is quite a substantial burden on Opposition
resources, whereas of course the Government can have them drafted
by legions of civil servants. Nonetheless, when circumstances
allow, I would wish to prepare such notes in the future.
I hope this is helpful.
July 2008
| 
