2 Select Committee amendments
Previous Committee report
2. In session 2008-09 the then Procedure Committee
was asked by the Liaison Committee to consider the tabling of
amendments by select committees. Current practice is that amendments
agreed by a select committee may be tabled only in the names of
individual Members which makes it difficult to distinguish "committee"
amendments from those tabled by the same Members acting as individuals.
After consulting interested parties in the House, the Procedure
Committee published a report recommending that the practice be
changed to allow select committees to table amendments to bills
and motions in the name of the Chair on behalf of the committee.[2]
3. The Committee saw the advantages of select committee
amendments as being the clarity they offered to both the House
and individual Members in enabling anyone reading the amendment
paper to see that a particular amendment originated with a select
committee. It was also felt that the change would enhance the
role of select committees which would contribute towards more
effective scrutiny of the executive.
4. The Committee also recognised that there were
potential disadvantages where individual members of a select committee
might disagree with the proposed amendment, either at the time
of its adoption by the committee or afterwards. To counter this,
the Committee recommended stringent safeguards be built into the
process by which committees could agree amendments which carried
the special status of select committee amendments. The Committee
suggested that such amendments should be formally agreed without
division by a quorate meeting of the committee. This is a more
rigorous requirement than is the case for select committee reports,
for example, which can be agreed by a simple majority.
5. Finally, our predecessor Committee recommended
that while it was quite possible for select committee amendments
to be tabled as such for identification purposes only, the special
status ought perhaps to be recognised in a higher priority in
terms of selection for debate or decision. The Committee rejected
the idea that select committee amendments should be guaranteed
debate because of the constraints of programming, but its report
supported the adoption of a convention that the Chair should look
favourably upon granting a decision on such amendments where they
were orderly.
Government response
6. The then Leader of the House, Rt Hon Harriet Harman
MP, wrote to the Committee in January 2010, asking for further
consideration to be given to two aspects of the report.[3]
First, she was concerned that even with the safeguards advocated
by the Committee the process could place "Members who were
not present at the meeting in a potentially difficult position,
as they will no doubt be assumed to support amendments tabled
on behalf of the committee and the onus will be on them to explain
the situation if they do not." She explained that the quorum
for select committees was such that "There is a risk that
decisions could be reached which are contrary to the views of
the majority of a committee's members", and she called on
the Committee to consider "additional safeguards": for
example, "a minimum notice period or some kind of qualified
quorum."
7. Secondly, Ms Harman raised the issue of according
priority in terms of decisions under programming to select committee
amendments. She pointed out that this "does not give sufficient
guidance to the Chair", explaining that "It is not clear,
for example, whether the Committee believes that such amendments
should be selected for separate decision even if they were not
reached for debate." A related concern was that "it
could significantly increase the number of divisions when internal
knives fall, taking up time that might more usefully be spent
debating the next group of amendments."
8. When this Committee was established in July 2010
we decided to pursue the request from Ms Harman that more detailed
proposals for select committee amendments be developed to put
to the House in the new Parliament. As a preliminary step, we
asked the new Leader of the House, Rt Hon Sir George Young MP,
for his view. At the end of August he wrote to tell us that he
could "see the clear merit in this proposal" but that
he would have to consult with colleagues in Government before
offering a definitive view.[4]
Disappointingly, he then wrote to us in November to inform us
that he did not think "that this is a proposal which the
Government can support in its current form." This was because
the Government had "reservations about the position of Members
who are not present at the meeting at which the amendments are
agreed to."[5]
9. We pressed the Leader of the House for an explanation
of the Government reservations which we received in January of
this year.[6] His response
addressed the same two points made by his predecessor: protecting
individual members of a committee from association with an amendment
with which they disagree and according priority to select committee
amendments under programming. On the former, he suggested a way
forward in the form of permitting a symbol to be inserted on the
amendment paper "where every member of the committee has
signed the amendment". Sir George described this as "a
proportionate solution to the problem of raising awareness of
select committee work, and their support of certain amendments".[7]
On the latter, in explaining his opposition to the question of
giving priority status to select committee amendments under programming,
Sir George argued that "a maximalist interpretation of this
recommendation might undermine the long-established practice of
the House, possibly increasing the number of divisions, at the
expense of debate on other amendments, and moving from the principle
that amendments should be chosen on their merits, to the detriment
of other backbench Members."
Our view
10. Having re-examined the proposal that select committees
should be able to table amendments in their own name, we are firmly
of the view that it would raise the profile of select committees
and encourage them in their valuable work in scrutinising legislation.
The Liaison Committee of select committee chairs also remains
of a similar opinion,[8]
and we note that the latest response from the Government, despite
concerns about the procedure, accepts the principle that there
are benefits in providing greater clarity where it is obvious
that a proposed amendment has the support of the entire committee.[9]
11. This leaves three points to be determined: how
such amendments should be agreed in committee in order to qualify
for the status of select committee amendments, how such amendments
should be identified on the amendment paper and what priority
should be given to them in terms of selection for debate or decision.
PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE
12. Our predecessor Committee recommended that select
committee amendments should be agreed unanimously at a quorate
meeting of the committee concerned and therefore recorded in the
formal minutes of the committee. The Leader of the House has suggested
that these conditions are not stringent enough and has instead
put forward the proposal that all members of the Committee, not
just those present at a meeting, should sign an amendment in order
for it to qualify. We consider that this is an unusually onerous
condition since nearly all select committees will have members
who do not attend meetings, either because they have been given
other responsibilities which are incompatible with participation
in the select committee's work or because they are absent owing
to illness or other commitments.
13. The stipulation proposed by our predecessors
of unanimous support by a quorate committee is already far more
rigorous than that required for agreeing a committee report or
for any other committee decision. There is a partial precedent
in the provision for the Regulatory Reform Committee to report
whether or not its recommendations on draft orders were reached
without a division but this too does not go as far as the proposal
to block select committee amendments from being tabled if any
opposition is recorded. We also recognise that a member of a committee
who disagreed with an amendment could mitigate his or her embarrassment
by pointing to the formal minutes of the committee which would
indicate that he or she was not present when the amendment was
agreed, and also by speaking or voting against it in the House.
14. We have considered an additional condition to
those proposed by our predecessor Committee which would be to
require notice to be given of any proposal that a select committee
consider an amendment to be tabled under this procedure. This
would prevent committees taking decisions on such amendments without
the knowledge of members who might wish to object. We consider
that this requirement would be proportionate in safeguarding the
interests of those members who may be against a proposal for a
select committee amendment whilst making it possible for a committee
to use this procedure if a quorum were present at the relevant
meeting.
MARKING SELECT COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
15. The Leader of the House suggested that instead
of amendments being tabled by the appropriate chair, "on
behalf of the committee", they should be marked on the amendment
paper by a symbol.[10]
We do not believe that this would be sufficient to assist those
within or outside the House to identify the relevant select committee
behind an amendment. Nor would it serve the purpose of making
select committee amendments stand out from other backbench amendments.
Symbols are necessarily obscure except to those very familiar
with a particular system, and there are also practical considerations
since the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament was told
that the software used to produce the amendment paper could cope
more easily with the full name of the committee than with footnotes
or symbols.[11]
16. Sir George Young further proposed that, in addition
to the symbol, perhaps the signatures of supporters could be grouped
"to help improve understanding".[12]
We do not believe that grouping the names would in itself be any
more helpful than the current system. We cannot expect all those
interested in the proceedings of Parliament to be instantly familiar
with the membership of all select committees and so able to make
the connection without further assistance. We note that when the
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee put forward amendments
to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, these
appeared in the names of several members of the Committee, headed
by Eleanor Laing MP (in the absence of the Chair). The link between
the Committee and the amendments would have been immediately clear
to all reading the amendment paper if the amendments had been
tabled in the name of the Committee which would have provided
useful background information for those preparing for the debate.
17. There is also a precedent for the formula put
forward by our predecessors in that motions to change the membership
of select committees may be tabled by the Chair on behalf of the
Committee of Selection and moved by any member of that Committee.
PRIORITY IN SELECTION FOR DECISION
OR DEBATE
18. We have considered again the matter of whether
select committee amendments should be given any priority in selection.
From the outset, we make it clear that our predecessor Committee
did not advocate any change to the established conventions on
which selection is based. If a select committee amendment is disorderly
for whatever reason or there are amendments on the paper which
should be given higher priority, judged on whatever criteria the
Chair chooses to apply, then the select committee amendment will
not, and should not, be selected. Beyond this, there is already
provision where bills under programme orders are concerned for
the Chair to select an amendment that has already been debated
for separate decision. For the Chair to take a favourable view,
without a commitment, where a select committee seeks a separate
decision on a particular amendment would not be a major change
to current practice and would be unlikely to take substantial
amounts of time away from other debates. We suggest that it might
bolster a committee's case for a separate decision if it had previously
published a report setting out the arguments which underpinned
the proposed amendment.
19. We recognise of course that it is possible for
amendments to be tabled and grouped in such a way that certain
selected amendments are pushed so far down the selection list,
possibly compounded by a motion from the Minister in charge to
consider the bill in a certain order, that they are not reached
for debate and so are rarely called for decision. We would deprecate
any attempt by others to table amendments with the purpose of
crowding out debates on issues which select committees feel are
sufficiently important to warrant tabling their own amendments.
This could well be another factor which the Chair might wish to
take into consideration when deciding whether to grant a separate
decision to select committee amendments.
RECOMMENDATIONS
20. This proposal is for a minor change to aid clarity
and transparency to a practice which already exists and has proved
useful to the House whereby members of select committees jointly
support amendments to bills and motions. We believe that a change
to formalise these arrangements is worth making because it would
assist the effectiveness of select committees in scrutinising
the Government and would enhance the accessibility of parliamentary
proceedings to the public.
21. We recommend that select committees be permitted
to table amendments to bills on the Floor and to motions in the
House in the name of the Chair on behalf of his or her select
committee. Amendments tabled in this way should be agreed formally
without division at a quorate meeting of the committee or by a
quorum of Commons members at a joint committee meeting, with notice
having been given to all members of that committee that the use
of this procedure was to be proposed. Whilst recognising and supporting
the established conventions governing the selection of amendments
for debate and decision, we hope that the Speaker or the Chairman
of Ways and Means might look favourably on a select committee
seeking a separate decision on its amendments where business is
programmed.
2 Fifth Report from the Procedure Committee, Tabling
of amendments by select committees, Session 2008-09 (HC 1104)
Back
3
Ev 4 Back
4
Letter from the Leader of the House, 31 August 2010, published
on 7 February 2011 Back
5
Letter from the Leader of the House, 10 November 2010, published
7 February 2011 Back
6
Ev 5 Back
7
Ev 5 Back
8
Ev 4-5 Back
9
Ev 5 Back
10
Ev 5 Back
11
HC 1004, Session 2008-09, Ev 2 Back
12
Ev 5 Back
| 
