Reasoned amendment

In Westminster Parliaments, a reasoned amendment is an amendment to the wording of the motion on the reading of a bill, which turns the motion from one progressing the bill into one rejecting it. It is sometimes called a wrecking amendment, but the term wrecking amendment more often denotes a type of amendment to the bill itself, rather than to a motion on reading the bill. The term "reasoned amendment" reflects the fact that the amended motion specifies reasons for rejecting the bill. ^{[1] [2]}

Outline

Consider the second reading in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of a bill which has 200 supporters and 300 opponents.

A typical process with no reasoned amendment might be:

• A supporter of the bill proposes the motion "That the Bill be now read a second time"
• Debate proceeds on the merits of the bill
• The house votes on the motion: Ayes 200, Noes 300
• Because the motion is defeated, the bill is rejected

The corresponding process with a reasoned amendment might be:

• A supporter of the bill proposes the [main] motion "That the Bill be now read a second time"
• An opponent of the bill proposes a motion to amend the main motion to "That this House declines to give the [Name] Bill a Second Reading because [reasons]"
• Debate proceeds on the merits of the bill
• The house votes on the motion to amend: Ayes 300, Noes 200
• The house votes on the amended main motion: Ayes 300, Noes 200
• Because the amended main motion is accepted, the bill is rejected.

With no reasoned amendment, the precise reasons for the bill's rejection may be inferred by reviewing the transcript in Hansard , but are not formally recorded in the Journal of the House of Commons. With a reasoned amendment, the motion recorded in the Journal will give the reasons.

For instance, in 1998 the House of Lords passed the following reasoned amendment: ^[3]

Leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to give the European Parliamentary Elections Bill a Second Reading on the grounds that it includes an undemocratic 'closed list' system providing for the selection of MEPs by party choice, an approach which would end the historic right of the British people to choose the candidates they wish to be elected, a step for which the House notes with great concern no mandate was sought or given at the last general election".

In this case, the Commons invoked the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 to override the Lords' rejection of the bill, which later became law as the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999.

Worldwide use

In the Australian Parliament a reasoned amendment may be moved during the second reading of a bill which would allow debate to be extended or allow the member moving the amendment to register their opposition. ^[4]

This day six months

An older form of rejection amendment is replacing the word "now" in the motion "that the Bill be now read a second time" with "upon this day six months" or "upon this day three months". This type of amendment, which has now fallen into disuse, is a legal fiction and is deemed by Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice ^[5] as equivalent to a motion not granting the Bill a second reading at all.

In Canada such an amendment is called a hoist amendment. In 1999 Gildas Molgat said "Nowadays, it is more often used to prolong debate since it allows those who have already spoken on the main motion an opportunity to speak again". ^[6]

References

1. "Reasoned amendments to second or third reading". UK Parliament. Archived from the original on 12 July 2023. Retrieved 20 May 2024.
2. "8". Public Bills. 2013. Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords. Archived from the original on 19 September 2024. Retrieved 20 May 2024. 8.38 A bill may be opposed on second reading by an amendment to the effect that "this House declines to give the bill a second reading". The amendment may add a reason (a "reasoned amendment"). The agreement of the House to such an amendment, with or without a reason, means automatic rejection of the bill. The question as amended is not put, and the bill is removed from the list of bills in progress.
3. Lord Williams of Mostyn (15 December 1998). "European Parliamentary Elections Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Vol. 595. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Lords. col. 1309. Archived from the original on 27 January 2025. Retrieved 10 July 2023.
4. Elder, David R.; Fowler, P. E., eds. (May 2018). Bills—the parliamentary process. Parliament of Australia. ISBN   978-1-74366-656-2. Archived from the original on 10 June 2024. Retrieved 27 January 2025.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
5. Natzler, David; Hutton, Mark; Hamlyn, Matthew; Lee, Colin; Mawson, Chloe; Lawrence, Kate; Poyser, Crispin; Samson, Eve, eds. (November 2023) [2019]. Reasoned amendments to question for second (or third) reading. Erskine May’s Treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament (25th ed.). UK Parliament. Paragraph 28.46. Archived from the original on 29 May 2024. Retrieved 27 January 2025. 1. For the obsolete 'six months' amendment on the second or third reading of a public bill (which survives in connection with private bills), see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 583, fn 7.
6. Gildas L. Molgat, The Hon. the Speaker (14 December 1999). "Debates of the Senate (Hansard)". Debates of the Senate (Hansard). Vol. 138, 2nd Session, 36th Parliament. Parliament of Canada: Senate of Canada. Second Reading—Motion in Amendment—Speaker's Ruling. Archived from the original on 27 January 2025. Retrieved 26 May 2024.