"Our initial review on these major proposals for change found that elements of the proposed procedures were over-engineered and potentially burdensome on the House. The Committee has recommended changes which will give the whole House a say in how it applies these procedures, and will streamline the process required to allow colleagues from constituencies in England or England and Wales to vote on legislation which affects those constituencies only.
Clearly the proposals represent a substantial change to the House's procedures, and they ought to be piloted on statutory instruments, and a small number of Bills, before they are fully implemented.
The Committee looked at the role of the Speaker in the certification process and considered how best he could be protected from being drawn into political argument when exercising his duties. Committee members thought that he should not give reasons for certification decisions to the House, but that he should be left to use his discretion as to how best to discharge the requirements.
The evidence we received demonstrated to us that the Government's policy should be implemented through changes to the House's procedures through Standing Orders, rather than through primary legislation. Legal challenges to the decisions of the Speaker and to the procedures of the House, though unlikely to succeed, cannot be ruled out.
It is important that legislation be drafted as clearly as possible to meet the tests for certifying England-only legislation.
These substantial proposals have thrown up very real concerns about how the House scrutinises the Government's plans to spend public money. The Committee will therefore be reviewing supply procedure as a matter of urgency.
In preparing the report, all members of the Committee made a positive and collaborative contribution. However, at the substantive vote to adopt the report as a Committee report to the House, we were unable to secure the endorsement of the two Committee members from the Scottish National Party."