The preparation is followed by a public hearing. The chamber has the right to make changes to the design. This right of amendment, which has been granted to the House of Representatives (not to the Senate) since 1848, is used very often.
Right of amendment
It gives MPs ample opportunity to weaken or eliminate objections to a government bill and has, in practice, become one of the most important parliamentary tools. As we will see, the government is not completely powerless against unwanted changes. She can exert strong pressure, but sometimes the pressure is worse than the disease.
Amendments generally do not come out of the blue; they have often already been hinted at during the oral or written preliminary discussion, so that the minister can know what to expect.
Amendments can be submitted by any member of parliament to the clerk’s office of the chamber after the (final) report has been issued. If the design has been discussed in a CCV, amendments can be submitted during and after the OCV. Like the reports, memos, etc., the amendments are also printed and distributed so that everyone can take note of them.
For the sake of clarity: the MP who submits an amendment is thereby proposing a change to a bill. This submission does not yet confirm that the proposed change will become a reality. A vote will decide whether the change will actually be made to the bill.
General deliberation
The discussion by the plenary meeting takes place in two parts. During the first part (the general deliberation), the draft is discussed in general terms, with the speakers from the various factions speaking first and then by the minister(s) and/or state secretary(s) involved (first term) , then again by the chamber (the reply) and then again by the minister (the rejoinder).
The MPs who want to speak about the bill have registered in advance as speakers on the speakers list. Whoever registers first also speaks first. If the list shows that the number of spokespersons is large and the discussion is at risk of expanding, the chamber may, on the proposal of the chairman, decide to ration speaking time per speaker. This rationing will rarely be necessary in the case of simple bills, but in the case of important and complex bills in which some factions send more than one speaker to the field, this method is often resorted to. Rationing of speaking time for ministers and state secretaries is not possible; The chamber can decide something about its own speaking time, but not about that of its guests, the ministers and state secretaries.
Article-by-article treatment
After the general deliberation, the article-by-article treatment follows, which is the separate discussion of the various articles of the bill. The order of speaking is in principle the same as in the general deliberation, with a reply and rejoinder if necessary. Submitted amendments will be discussed in this article-by-article treatment, namely at the same time as the article to which they relate.
The condition for consideration (which is different from submitting) is that the amendment is supported by four other MPs in addition to the submitter. Sometimes this support is evident from co-signing the amendment; If this is not the case, the chairman will ask the meeting whether the amendment has sufficient support from other MPs. Members who wish to support the amendment (either because they fully agree with the content or because they do not want to deprive the proposer of the opportunity for consideration) then respond by raising their hands.
Long consultation
What is briefly shown here can sometimes take weeks for important bills. More than once it happens that the chamber completes the first term in one or two days and that the minister can only give his answer the following week. He may first have to reconsider important amendments with his officials and colleagues.
In politically sensitive bills, it is not unusual for ministers to first want to hear the Council of Ministers’ opinion on certain amendments. The consequence of accepting an amendment may be that the policy that the minister wants to implement through the bill can no longer be properly implemented. If that policy is an important part of government policy, a minister will determine his position in consultation with the entire cabinet.
Standard expressions for amendments
Particularly in the case of important bills, the House is very interested in the minister’s opinion on certain amendments. The ministerial judgment is usually summarized in a few standard expressions, i.e. expressions that are not prescribed in so many words, but which have acquired a kind of customary law in parliamentary jargon.
If a particular amendment is not opposed by the House (by other MPs) and if the minister himself does not expect any adverse consequences from it, he will be inclined to adopt the amendment. In that case, the amendment does not need to be voted on; it will definitely become part of the bill.
If there is objection in the chamber to a particular amendment, but the minister is relatively neutral towards it, he usually announces that he will leave the amendment to the judgment of the chamber. The minister exerts no pressure, as far as he is concerned the chamber can decide whatever it wants. Things are different if the minister says that he discourages or strongly discourages acceptance of an amendment. In other words: the minister does not yet make the amendment a major issue, but he does see acceptance as a kind of unfriendly act. The opposition will of course not be upset by such a reaction, but the minister’s political friends (the pro-government factions) are generally sensitive to it.
The strongest argument that the minister can use is the declaration of unacceptable. If a minister declares an amendment unacceptable, he is indicating that he can no longer take responsibility for the bill after accepting the amendment. Usually this means that the design is withdrawn.