Memorandum submitted by Simon Patrick,
Clerk of Bills (P 4, 2009-10)
1. In 2006 the Modernisation Committee
recommended an experiment to permit Members to table short explanatory
statements (ESs) with their amendments to bills being considered
in public bill committees.[9]
Under arrangements approved by the Procedure Committee and the
Chairmen's Panel, there were experiments with the Legal Services
Bill [Lords] in Session 2006-07, the Energy Bill, the Pensions
Bill and the Planning Bill in Session 2007-08, and with all Bills
before a public bill committee (except the Finance Bill) since
February 2009. (The Committee hoped that widening the experiment
would increase the take-up of the facility by opposition and backbench
Members.) The ESs are printed on the amendment papers, as the
Committee will have seen, in 10 pt italic type under the
amendments (which are in 11 pt type) (an example is attached
[not printed]). For the 2009 experiment, they have also appeared
in the Official Report.
2. The facility has not been available
for amendments dealt with on the floor of the House, that is in
Committee of the whole House, at report stage, or during consideration
of Lords amendments.
3. This paper examines the extent to which
the ESs have been tabled in the 2009 experiment so that the
Procedure Committee can consider the future of the practice. It
follows previous papers (P 41, 2006-07 and P 58, 2007-08).
The Committee might also wish to survey the extent to which
the ESs were found helpful to the work of the Committees and seek
the view of Parliamentary Counsel on the extra time they take
to produce them.
4. Most but not all Government amendments
and new Clauses tabled for public bill committees have come with
explanatory statements. These are provided in electronic form
and do not cause extra work for the Public Bill Office (PBO).
The Editorial Supervisor of the Vote Office (ESVO) estimate that
it takes them about 60 seconds' extra work per Government
ES. The additional costs to the House are limited to a slightly
raised additional page count for the amendment papers (both the
blue "notices given" papers and the white papers provided
for each committee sitting) and for Hansard.
5. Parliamentary Counsel draft a separate
note for each amendment, even though many Government amendments
in committee fall into natural groups. The Procedure Committee's
guidelines allow a single ES to appear under the first amendment
in a group, with cross-references to it appearing under the others.
6. The Opposition front bench rarely produce
ESs, even though they might have been expected to do so given
their resources in support staff. The Liberal Democrat front bench
produce them more often than not. A few backbenchers have tabled
ESs, eg Mr John Mason on the Equality Bill and Mr Graham Stuart
and Ms Karen Buck on the Child Poverty Bill. Where ESs are tabled
other than by Parliamentary Counsel, they require re-keyboarding
by the ESVO and insertion in the correct place. They also need
to be checked in the PBO to ensure that they are in conformity
with the rules laid down by the Procedure Committee (eg that they
are not argumentative, and do not exceed 50 words). This
can be a significant burden if a large number of ESs come in on
the same day. The ESVO estimated the extra processing time as
five minutes for each non-Government ES.
7. The Committee will wish to consider whether
the facility for ESs is worth the extra work involved. If the
process is to continue in one form or another, the Committee may
wish to consider if there is a stronger case for such statements
to be available (instead of in Public Bill Committees) on Report
or in Committee of the whole House, where there may be many Members
not as familiar with the Bills as in a small public bill committee,
and where there may on occasions be no other opportunity for Ministers
to explain their amendments before they are decided en bloc
under a programme order.
November 2009
9 Modernisation Committee, First Report, Session 2005-06,
HC 1097, The Legislative Process, paras 81-2. Back
|
