Download Free Improving The Effectiveness Of Parliamentary Scrutiny A Select Committee Amendments B Explanatory Statements On Amendments C Written Parliamentary Questions Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Improving The Effectiveness Of Parliamentary Scrutiny A Select Committee Amendments B Explanatory Statements On Amendments C Written Parliamentary Questions and write the review.

This report builds on work undertaken in the previous Parliament. It contains three sets of recommendations which share a common aim of improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. Firstly the Committee recommends that select committees be allowed to table in their own amendments to bills and motions on the floor of the House. Secondly it is recommended that during this Parliament Members and opposition spokespeople be encouraged to table explanatory statements on amendments to bills and that the Government use this facility to provide explanatory statements to clarify the origin of amendments and new clauses proposed on report. Thirdly the Committee recognises that whilst written parliamentary questions are a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny, there is a danger that their value is being eroded by the record numbers being tabled which also imposes significant costs on the public purse. The Committee therefore proposes a three month trial of applying a daily quota of five and an earlier deadline of 6.30 pm from Monday to Thursday and 2.30 pm on sitting Fridays to questions for written answer submitted electronically. They also recommend that, to assist Members, the Government deliver all answers to parliamentary questions to the Member concerned by email at the same time as the answer is delivered to the House
In this report the Procedure Committee invites the House to expand the tabling of explanatory statements on amendments to all bills at both Committee and Report stage from the start of the 2013-14 Session. Explanatory statements enhance MPs' ability to scrutinise legislation, unpacking complex or technical amendments and so opening up the legislative process to the wider public, as well as providing greater focus for Members' arguments during debates. There have been several previous pilots of explanatory statements. During the current session, MPs have been permitted to table explanatory statements to two bills. Having evaluated the pilot on the basis of criteria agreed between the Committee and the Leader of the House, the Committee concludes that the time has come to end the experimental approach and allow the culture of explanatory statements to embed itself, in a permissive environment where space is provided to backbench Members, the Government and the Opposition to ensure that explanatory statements become an accepted norm of the legislative process. The Committee considered the possibility of imposing a mandatory requirement at some or all stages, but concluded that to do so would risk restricting Opposition and backbench MPs from tabling amendments and would therefore be damaging to the House's ability to scrutinise legislation.
In October 2010 the Committee in response to a report by its predecessor committee began a trial exercise in monitoring unsatisfactory and late answers to written Parliamentary questions. With just over 50 complaints from Members in response to the exercise of which half were followed up. This resulted in answers for Members on a number of occasions in circumstances where they would otherwise have found difficult or impossible to follow up on an inadequate response. The exercise will now come to an end and be put on a more permanent footing.In consideration of a memorandum from the Leader of the House providing statistics on the time taken to respond to WPQs in 2010-12, the committee has sought explanations from Ministers in charge of poorly performing departments for the level of performance in the memorandum and what steps are being taken to improve these levels. The Department for Education had a particularly poor performance and evidence was taken from the Parliamentary Under Secretary and a senior official in the Department which the Committee found unsatisfactory with and so a follow up session with the Permanent Secretary and Secretary of State was undertaken. The Committee will continue its interest in the answering performance of this Department and hold it to further account should its performance not improve markedly.
On 13 October 2011 the House agreed to a 3-month experiment with restrictions on the number of questions which could be tabled electronically on any one day and an earlier deadline for their submission. The Table Office has provided the Committee with a memorandum assessing the impact of those changes, and recommending that the experiment be made permanent. The Committee, therefore agree with the Table Office's conclusions and recommend that the restrictions on e-tabling which have been piloted should continue. The Committee also recommends that the consequent upgrade to the e-tabling system include improvements such as the introduction of a basket in which to keep PQs prior to their submission, if and when they prove technically feasible.
The Standing Orders and the practice of the House enable Ministers to make written and oral statements to the House on matters of public importance. That facility is not available to Members who answer in the House on behalf of statutory bodies which are not subject to direct Ministerial accountability such as the House of Commons Commission and the Church Commissioners. Consequently contrivances such as a "planted" written question or an agreed urgent question are necessary in circumstances where an announcement is to be made to the House. The Committee considered whether arrangements might be put in place to enable, in appropriate circumstances, Members answering in the House on behalf of statutory bodies to make written and oral statements. They recommend that the necessary amendments be made to Standing Order No. 22A to enable those Members to make written statements and that those Members who are for the time being on the rota for oral questions should be enabled, on being granted permission in advance by the Speaker, to make an oral statement to the House
On 13 October 2011 the House agreed to a 3-month experiment with restrictions on the number of questions which could be tabled electronically on any one day and an earlier deadline for their submission. The Table Office has provided us with a memorandum assessing the impact of those changes, and recommending that the experiment be made permanent.
In July 2012, the House agreed to allow debates on Government e-petitions to take place on Mondays in Westminster Hall, on a trial basis during the current session. Three debates have taken place during the session, with a fourth scheduled on the day of publication of this report (22 April 2013). The Government's e-petitions website continues to be popular, and a dedicated slot in Westminster Hall on Monday afternoon provides a clear end-point for the process. The Procedure Committee agrees with the Backbench Business Committee that the trial has been successful and recommends that the temporary changes to the Standing Orders be made permanent.
Additional written evidence is contained in Vol. 2, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/proccom
The Committee's proposal of the introduction of an hour-long debating slot in Westminster Hall-in place of one of the current half-hour slots-is intended to provide a further timing option when applying for a debate and enable the participation of a larger number of Members. The Committee also recommends that the Monday e-petition debates and Thursday select committee and backbench business sittings be swapped to avoid the current clash of backbench business on a Thursday between the main chamber and Westminster Hall. The trial of allocation of one 90-minute debate slot by the Backbench Business Committee has come to an end. The Committee has also recommended the end of the use of adjournment motions and their replacement with 'general debate' motions. This change, which mirrors the change already made for equivalent debates in the main chamber, is designed to aid public understanding of House procedures. Finally the Committee has proposed some technical changes; that the Chairman of Ways and Means have overall responsibility for all sittings in Westminster Hall; that the Chair have the power to suspend a sitting and report disorderly conduct to the House; and that unused provisions of the standing order governing business in Westminster Hall be repealed