2 Pilot of explanatory statements
4. Following discussions between the Leader of
the House and ourselves during the first half of 2012, it was
agreed that a pilot would take place on two bills, the Electoral
Registration and Administration Bill and the Small Charitable
Donations Bill, using guidelines set out in our report. The pilot
was to be evaluated on the following criteria:
- The extent to which explanatory
statements are tabled by (a) backbenchers and (b) the Official
Opposition;
- The extent to which explanatory statements require
editorial or other intervention by the House authorities to ensure
compliance with the guidelines;
- The extent to which explanatory statements or
information uniquely available from those statements is referred
to in debate or otherwise used in discussion about the Bill;
- The costs and resource implications, including
indirect costs.[6]
5. In announcing the pilot, the Government made
clear that "there would have to be very significant and clearly
definable benefits illustrated from this final pilot for any further
progress to be made".[7]
Evaluation of the pilot
6. Following the conclusion of the pilot, the
Public Bill Office prepared a memorandum for the Leader of the
House, which was copied to us, evaluating the pilot on the basis
of the above criteria.[8]
USE OF EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS
7. The memorandum outlines the take-up of explanatory
statements at each stage:
The pilot in respect of the Electoral Registration
and Administration Bill covered both Committee of the whole House
stage and any proceedings on consideration: in the event there
were no proceedings on consideration, as no amendments were made
to the Bill in Committee of the whole House. The Bill spent three
days in Committee, on 18, 25 and 27 June 2012.
Forty-eight amendments (including 5 New Clauses)
were tabled, none of them government amendments. 37 were from
the Official Opposition and the remaining 11 from backbenchers.
Explanatory statements were tabled to all but one of the backbench
amendments. No explanatory statements were tabled to the Official
Opposition amendments.
| Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
| Committee of the whole House Stage
|
| Government Amendments (with statements) |
0 (N/A) |
| Official Opposition Amendments (with statements)
| 37 (0) |
| Other amendments (with statements) | 11 (10)
|
| Total No. of Amendments tabled (with statements)
| 48 (10) |
...
The pilot in respect of the Small Charitable Donations Bill covered
both Public Bill Committee stage and Report stage.
At Committee stage (16 to 30 October 2012), 42 amendments
(including 5 New Clauses) were tabled. 15 amendments were tabled
by the Government: all had explanatory statements. Of the non-Government
amendments, 26 (including two amendments to Government amendments)
were from the Official Opposition, and one was from a spokesman
for a smaller party. All of the non-Government amendments had
explanatory statements, other than two (fairly self-explanatory)
New Clauses.
At Report stage (26 November 2012), 40 amendments
(including 3 New Clauses) were tabled. 9 of the amendments were
Government, 22 were Official Opposition and 9 were from other
Members (one Government backbencher, and two spokespersons for
smaller parties). Three of the Official Opposition amendments
(again fairly self-explanatory) were tabled without explanatory
statements.
| Small Charitable Donations Bill
| Committee Stage | Report Stage
|
| Government Amendments (with statements) |
15 (15) | 9 (9)
|
| Official Opposition Amendments (with statements)
| 26 (24) | 22 (19)
|
| Other amendments (with statements) | 1 (1)
| 9 (9) |
| Total No. of Amendments tabled (with statements)
| 42 (40) | (37)
|
REFERENCE TO EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS IN DEBATE
8. There were a number of references to explanatory statements
in the course of proceedings on each bill. In relation to the
Small Charitable Donations Bill:
On 25 October 2012, Mr George Mudie sought clarification from
the Minister on the meaning of Government amendment 6, with specific
reference to the explanatory statement.[9]
On the same date, Cathy Jamieson quoted from the explanatory statement
to Government amendment 11.[10]
9. The memorandum also notes an exchange in the chamber in
relation to the use of explanatory statements on the Electoral
Registration and Administration Bill:
Mr Mark Harper: ...They [backbench Members] have participated
very well in the experiment that the Procedure Committee has asked
us to undertake. This Bill is an example of it, because all hon.
Members tabling amendments were asked to include explanatory statements
to enable hon. Members to better understand the nature of the
amendments. I am pleased that they have done so, as it is very
helpful to the House. It is just a shame that the official Opposition
appear to have ignored the fact that we are conducting that experiment
and have not taken that opportunity. I am sure that the Procedure
Committee will draw the appropriate conclusion.[11]
The Shadow Minister (Mr Wayne David) replied:
I am more than happy to provide an explanation. Resources are
extremely limited for Opposition Members and the Minister will
have noticed how many amendments we have tabled. That shows our
concern about the fine detail of the Bill. However, we thought
it was far better to follow the time-honoured practice of tabling
amendments and using the facility of being at the Dispatch Box
to explain our points and that is precisely what we are doing.[12]
EDITORIAL INTERVENTION AND COST AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
10. The Public Bill Office considered that there had been
minimal need for editorial intervention by House staff. Where
assistance was given with the drafting of explanatory statements
"this took little time (no more than five minutes per amendment),
and usually saved time elsewhere by establishing a verifiable
shared understanding of what amendments were intended to achieve."[13]
Printing costs were estimated at £12.30 per explanatory statement.[14]
VIEWS OF MEMBERS
11. Anecdotal evidence about the effect of the pilot showed
a generally positive reception:
Members and their staff generally found the process of drafting
explanatory statements to amendments helpful, both for clarifying
the arguments and intention behind amendments when drafting, and
in confirming their understanding of amendments tabled by other
Members. Those who did not provide explanatory statements with
their amendments did so for lack of time, and have said that they
would want to provide such statements if offered the opportunity
to do so in future, resources permitting.[15]
12. We have also received broad indications of support from
a number of Members who have written to the Committee during the
course of the pilot, as well as from the Parliament First all-party
Parliamentary group.
PUBLIC BILL OFFICE'S CONCLUSIONS
13. The Public Bill Office's conclusions were as follows:
Our impressions are that Members are generally willing, even keen,
to provide explanatory statements with their amendments. It is
also not uncommon for us to be approached by individual Members
before a debate on a Bill, particularly for a debate in the Chamber
where Members who were not on the Public Bill Committee have an
interest, asking why there are no documents available that would
help to explain the purpose of amendments that have been tabled.
The barriers to tabling explanatory statements seem
mainly to be time- and resource-related. This is less likely to
be a problem for a Bill taken in Public Bill Committee, where
the dates are known well in advance, and where there are often
several weeks of sittings, than for Committee of the Whole House
or Report stage, where at the extreme, a debate on a Monday might
be confirmed only the previous Thursday, with the deadline for
the tabling of amendments being the rise of the House that same
day. The later deadline for tabling amendments for the floor of
the House also provides less of an opportunity (although still
some opportunity) for an explanatory statement to be added to
an amendment after it has been tabled.
The Leader has asked for our views on the option
of making explanatory statements voluntary at Committee stage
and mandatory at Report stage. There is a logic to the idea in
respect of Public Bill Committees. Members might be more likely
to produce explanatory statements of their own accord in Public
Bill Committee, while Members of the Public Bill Committee are
at an advantage in having time to understand the Bill they are
considering, and to seek explanation in person, if Members do
table amendments without explanatory statements.
Members may find it more of a burden to have to produce
explanatory statements at Report stage but I think it is unlikely
that a requirement to do so would prevent many amendments from
reaching the House. It is not that difficult to draft a brief
explanatory statement, and a Member seeking to table an amendment
might want to think again about doing so if they were unable to
explain briefly what it would achieve. At Report stage, there
are also more Members than in Public Bill Committee who will potentially
participate in debate, and who will therefore benefit from a well-drafted
explanatory statement.
If explanatory statements are to be mandatory at
Report stage, it is hard to see why they should not also be mandatory
for Bills considered in Committee of the whole House. The same
arguments (short notice period and general interest) apply, and
for some Bills (such as the Electoral Registration and Administration
Bill), this will be the only Commons stage at which amendments
can be tabled.[16]
14. The Public Bill Office also highlighted a
number of risks that might arise if explanatory statements were
made mandatory:
There is a risk that Members might bring in orderly
amendments for tabling just minutes before the deadline, but with
a disorderly explanatory statement or no explanatory statement
at all. Refusing to allow such amendments to be tabled would place
the Members involved and the Public Bill Office in a difficult
position. An alternative would be to allow orderly explanatory
statements to be tabled on the day after the deadline for tabling
the amendments themselves. It would, of course, be for the Speaker
or Chairman of Ways and Means to decide whether to select an amendment
where no explanatory statement had been tabled with at least one
day's notice.[17]
Government response
15. The Leader of the House wrote to us in response
to the memorandum setting out the Government's views. He re-stated
the view that "for explanatory statements to be a useful
part of the legislative process, it is necessary for there to
be full participation across the House, from Government, the Opposition
front bench and from backbench members."[18]
In response to the conclusions set out in the Public Bill Office's
memorandum, he noted:
I am particularly interested in the proposal that
explanatory statements could be voluntary in Public Bill Committees
but mandatory for all amending stages taken on the floor of the
House. I hope that the Committee will, therefore, consider whether
there is a case for explanatory statements being a mandatory part
of the scrutiny process.
There are a number of questions, some of which have
been posed by the Clerk of Legislation, which will require thorough
consideration before any moves towards making Explanatory Statements
part of the legislative process. I am particularly interested
in:
— Whether
amendments without explanatory statements should be accepted for
tabling and selected for debate. The latter is ultimately a matter
for the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means.
— Whether explanatory statements which
are defective should be accepted for tabling;
— Whether self-explanatory or repeated
minor, technical amendments could be exempt from requiring explanatory
statements with the consent of the Public Bill Office;
— The costs and overall value for money
of any permanent solution.[19]
6 HC Deb, 23 May 12, col 72WS. Back
7
Ibid. Back
8
See p.14ff. Back
9
Public Bill Committee Hansard, 25 October 2012, cols 251-252. Back
10
Public Bill Committee Hansard, 25 October 2012, col 266. Back
11
HC Deb, 18 June 2012, col 633. Back
12
Ibid. Back
13
Para 10 (p.16). Back
14
Para 11 (p.16). Back
15
Para 12 (p.16). Back
16
Paras 13-17 (p.17). Back
17
Para 18 (p.17). Back
18
p.20. Back
19
p.21. Back
| 
