Written evidence
Memorandum from the Clerk of
Legislation
1. The Leader of the House has asked the Public
Bill Office to evaluate a pilot scheme for allowing explanatory
statements to be tabled alongside amendments to two Bills recently
before the House[25].
We have been asked to evaluate the pilot on the basis of the following
criteria, along with any anecdotal evidence:
- 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.
2. We have also been asked to provide a breakdown
of the use of explanatory statements at Committee stage and Report
stage; and to comment on the proposal that explanatory statements
might be made mandatory for amendments tabled on Report stage
of Bills, and optional for Committee stage.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
3. 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.
4. 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.[26]
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)
|
5. Explanatory statements to amendments were mentioned in
debate on two occasions:
On 18 June 2012, the Minister (Mr Mark Harper) said
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.
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.[27]
On 25 June 2012, there was a slight misunderstanding as to the
purpose of an Opposition amendment. The Minister (Mr David Heath)
noted that "we would have understood her [Angela Smith's]
amendments more clearly had she produced an explanatory memorandum".[28]
Small Charitable Donations Bill
6. The pilot in respect of the Small Charitable Donations
Bill covered both Public Bill Committee Stage and Report stage.
7. 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[29].
All of the non-Government amendments had explanatory statements,
other than two (fairly self-explanatory) New Clauses.
8. 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) | 40 (37)
|
9. There were two references to explanatory statements in
debate at Committee stage and none at Report stage:
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.[30]
On the same date, Cathy Jamieson quoted from the explanatory statement
to Government amendment 11.[31]
The role of the House service: editorial intervention, and
cost and resource implications
10. Most of the explanatory statements were drafted by Members,
with no or minimal intervention from the Public Bill Office. Where
Public Bill Office staff helped to draft amendments, they also
helped to draft explanatory statements, but they report that 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. Typesetting
costs cannot be disaggregated but are minimal.
11. Printing costs: Estimated at £12.30
per explanatory statement.[32]
Anecdotal evidence
12. Staff in the Public Bill Office have informally
approached Members and their staff (but not Ministers or civil
servants) who were involved in proceedings on the two Bills. Feedback
has been positive. 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.
Conclusions
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
Issues to be resolved if explanatory statements become mandatory
18. 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.
19. Consideration would also need to be given
to what constitutes adequacy and accuracy. For example, what should
happen (if anything) if an explanatory statement, tabled in time,
stated merely :
- "This is a probing amendment."
(without setting out what it would achieve), or
- "This amendment is self-explanatory."
(It might or might not be), or
- "This amendment is consequential on amendment
x." coupled with "This is a paving amendment for amendment
y.", or
- "This amendment would achieve x." (when
in fact it wouldn't)?
20. The Public Bill Office would of course be
happy to look further at these questions if that would be helpful.
7 January 2013
Letter from the Leader of the
House to the Clerk of Legislation
As you will be aware, pilots of allowing explanatory
statements to amendments to bills were undertaken for the Electoral
Registration and Administration Bill and the Small Charitable
Donations Bill. At the start of this session, the then Leader
of the House and the then Chairman of the Procedure Committee
agreed that a formal evaluation of the pilots would take place,
with an initial evaluation conducted by the House Service. This
commitment, and the criteria for evaluation, is set out in the
Written Ministerial Statement made by my predecessor on 23 May
2012, which I attach.
As both bills have now cleared the House of Commons,
the Government is keen that early progress is made in evaluating
the pilots. As part of this, I would be grateful if the House
Service would examine the following criteria, along with any anecdotal
evidence:
- 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.
In addition to these criteria, which were contained
in the Written Ministerial Statement, I would also be grateful
for a breakdown to the use of explanatory statement at (a) Committee
Stage and (b) Report Stage and would welcome your views on the
option of making explanatory statements voluntary in committee
stage and mandatory for all at report stage, for all public bills.
It would be useful to have a response from you early
in the new year to allow the Procedure Committee and Government
to consider your evidence as the basis for further evaluation.
29 November 2012
Small Charitable Donations Bill, Public Bill Committee
Hansard, 25 October 2012
Column number: 251
Mr George Mudie
(Leeds East) (Lab): In layman's terms, so that small charities
actually understand the ground rules, the community building arrangements
have been introduced in the Bill to suit, for example, churches
that are at a disadvantage because of their different structures.
It is not aimed at helping smaller charities. The processes in
this part of the Bill are designed to prevent small charities
from taking advantage of the second £5,000. It is a fraud
in terms of holding out the chance to a small charity of actually
ever attaining that £1,250 by raising the additional£5,000.
Sajid Javid: The hon.
Gentleman has said a lot in our sittings with which I agree, but
if he will allow me, I will have to disagree with him wholeheartedly
on this occasion. He is right in one respect, in that Churches
are one of the groups most affected by community building rules,
so if the rules did not exist, it is fair to say that the Church
of England, for example, would have a huge issue with that. In
trying to answer his question, it is best to explain why the Church
of England would have such an issue. The Church of England, by
contrast with the Roman Catholic Church, is often structured as
a small number of registered charities in each parish, for example;
the Roman Catholic Church is structured differently, as what we
might call a branch network. To correct myself, therefore, in
the context of Churches the Roman Catholic Church would be the
one to benefit most from the community buildings rule. However,
one should not think of each of those branches of the Roman Catholic
Church as not being small charities, because in their own village
or community the local parishioners would view them as—
Mr Mudie: I thank the
Minister for allowing me to intervene because it might save the
Committee some time. I totally accept the basis for the changes
in terms of the Churches. That is not an issue; I think they do
the job well. In the same part of the Bill, however, there is
an allusion to small charities being able to gain, but that is
an illusion. The Minister may drop the Church part of the explanation,
but can he tell the Committee who is actually able to contribute
a donation that counts as part of the sum for getting the community
building£5,000?
The Member's explanatory statement for amendment
6 suggests that the donations have to be
"collected from persons with whom the charity
is carrying out the charitable activity."
In other words, if 10 Alzheimer's patients were in
a room being looked after and encouraged, they would be the only
people in the room who could contribute to the charity. In the
explanatory notes for the Bill, that point is made exactly with
reference to a medical charity, the phrase being:
"from attendees during the meetings."
Can the Minister clarify that?
Sajid Javid: Yes, I happily
will. The hon. Gentleman asked who can benefit from the collections
in community buildings—
Column number: 252
Mr Mudie: No,
who can contribute.
Sajid Javid: Okay. I will
answer that question now. The contributions made by any group
member carrying on the charitable activity will count towards
the £5,000 limit. A group must include at least 10 people
who are beneficiaries of the charity when carrying out the activity,
as discussed, but donations from any other people present will
count as small donations under the scheme.
Mr Mudie: The Minister
will agree that, according to the Bill documents, if other than
the recipients of the charitable activity make a donation it is
not counted for the community building part of the scheme, it
is used as the other part—the other£5,000.
Sajid Javid: To clarify,
if a charity is using this part of the Bill—the community
building rules—and assuming it meets the other criteria
of at least 10 people being present in the community building
when the charitable activity and the collection are taking place,
then there will be 10 people who are beneficiaries, but the donations
of anyone else who is present and making contributions count towards
the £5,000 limit.
Mr Mudie: Can the Minister
tie that up to the penultimate and last lines in his explanatory
statement on amendment 6? He stated:
"for the purposes of clause 6 unless they are
collected from persons with whom the charity is carrying out the
charitable activity."
In other words, the poor gentleman or lady with Alzheimer's
who is the recipient of the charitable activity is the only person
who can make a donation.
Sajid Javid: The position
is as follows. When the donations are collected there must be
at least 10 qualifying people there—these are beneficiaries
of the charity. If there are another five, six, 10 people who
are making donations—who are not the people, to use the
hon. Gentleman's example, suffering from Alzheimer's—those
donations will count. The 10 people rule concerns the beneficiaries
who must be present in that community building.
Correspondence from the Leader of the House to
the Committee
As you will be aware, I wrote to the Clerk of Legislation
on 29 November 2012, seeking a factual evaluation of the pilots
of explanatory statements to amendments to legislation. I enclose
the Clerk of Legislation's response of 8 January.
I am pleased that the House Authorities have found
that anecdotal evidence shows feedback from Members and their
staff to be positive and that explanatory statements are felt
to be helpful. The statistics provided by the Clerks also highlight
the high level of participation in the pilot, with the notable
exception of the opposition in the case of the Electoral Registration
and Administration Bill.
Our respective predecessors agreed in May 2012 that
the Procedure Committee would report on the outcome of the pilots.
I hope that the Committee will be able to undertake this as part
of its work programme in the near future. I remain strongly of
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. As I set out in my letter
to the Clerk of Legislation, 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.
I look forward to setting out my views to the Committee
in detail in due course.
24 January 2013
25 Letter from the Leader attached. Back
26
There were eight different lead names to the 11 amendments, representing
the three largest parties in the House. Back
27
HC Deb, 18 June 2012, col 633 Back
28
HC Deb, 25 June 2012, col 669 Back
29
Mark Durkan, SDLP Back
30
Public Bill Committee Hansard, 25 October 2012, col 251-252 (attached) Back
31
Public Bill Committee Hansard, 25 October 2012, col 266 Back
32
Based on an actual cost per page of £100, an estimate that
22.75 explanatory statements would fill a page, and the fact that
each explanatory statement relating to the two bills in the pilot
was re-printed on average 2.8 times. The cost is subject to any
future reduction in the frequency with which the texts of amendments
are printed in hard copy. Back
| 
