Explanatory statements to amendments
17.On 7 June 2018, following the recommendation of the Procedure Committee’s 4th Report of 2017–19, the House agreed to conduct a trial of allowing members to add explanatory statements to amendments. Pilots took place on two bills: the Ivory Bill and the Offensive Weapons Bill.
18.In our 4th report we undertook to evaluate the results of the pilot before making a recommendation to the House on whether or not explanatory statements to amendments should be extended to all bills. Accordingly we have examined the use that was made of explanatory statements to amendments and the experience of those that tabled such statements, those that processed them and those that made use of them.
19.It is clear that members welcomed the development. Officials familiar with the bills saw particular value in statements on opposition to clause stand part, where the new procedure made it clearer why a member objected to a clause. Other users, less familiar with the intricacies of the bills, saw real value in the statements, which allowed them to understand the amendments at a glance without needing to cross-refer.
20.The following issues presented some difficulties, or were not clearly covered by the initial guidance agreed by the House:
- Gaining approval of multiple signatories for the addition or amendment of a statement;
- Re-printing amendments on daily sheets to include new statements;
- Responsibility for whether an amendment does what the statement says it does;
- Whether it is in order for a statement to express the purpose of an amendment rather than its intended effect (e.g. “This is a probing amendment…”);
- Starring.
21.We believe that the trial of explanatory statements to amendments has been a success. We recommend that explanatory statements to amendments should be rolled out to all bills from the start of the next session.
22.In the light of the issues listed in paragraph 20 we recommend new text to be added to the Companion. This is set out in appendix 1. It is based on the original guidance, supplemented (in italics) with proposed changes to address the issues above. The changes are suggested either to streamline the process (responsibility rests with lead member; not reprinting until the marshalled list), to reflect an interpretation of the guidance which members have found helpful (using statements to advertise purpose rather than effect) or to clarify certain matters (clause stand part; starring).