A240 - Bill Amendments Amendment (Second Reading)

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1
A240 - Bill Amendments Amendment (Second Reading)
Proposed by: 04MR17 MP (CP)
Seconded by: Aph MP (CP); FRS500 MP (Lab); Moonbow MP (LD); Theloniouss MP (CP)

An Amendment to Change the Guidance Document as follows:

Under Bills Procedure replace:
“4) Each item can undergo a maximum of 3 readings: i) First Reading – Two days minimum, Six days maximum (with an additional 48 hour extension if requested) ii) Second Reading – One day minimum, Four days maximum (with an additional 24 hour extension if requested) iii) Third reading – One day minimum, Three days maximum
5) After a reading, the item is put into cessation for up to 7 days unless the proposer has asked for it to go to a new reading or to division.
6) At any point during an item's discussion the submitter can ask for a 7 day cessation period.
7) An item can be withdrawn at any point. Once an item has been withdrawn it cannot be submitted for a further reading or sent to division during the same term.”


With:
“4) Each item can undergo a maximum of 3 readings.

i) The First Reading of an item must last for five days minimum, seven days maximum.
ii) A Second Reading of an item must last for three days.
iii) A Third Reading of an item must last for two days.

5) An amendment to a bill may be submitted by any MP to the speaker during the period of the bill’s first reading.

i) An amendment to the bill should not change the stated aim of the bill.
ii) The Speaker has the right to reject an amendment to the bill on the grounds that it holds aims contradictory to that of the bill in its first reading.
iii) An amendment to a bill should be formatted as if it were the entire bill, amended, with an added note to explain the change(s) made.
iv) The Speaker has the right to reject an amendment to the bill on the grounds of it not being formatted correctly according to sub-section iii.
v) The original author of the bill may submit an amendment while the bill is in cessation, after its first reading.
vi) Any person who is not an MP (aside from the speaker) may submit an amendment to the bill if seconded by an MP; except where the author of the bill, who is not an MP, submits an amendment.
vii) If the Speaker receives no amendments for the bill, the item is put into cessation for up to 7 days unless the proposer has asked for it to go to division, or asks for it to be withdrawn.

6) Amendments to the bill will be considered as second readings of a bill.

i) These shall be labelled “Bxxx(ii)”, “Bxxx(iii)” etc. according to the order in which they were submitted to the speaker.
ii) Unless the member who submits the amendment withdraws it, the amendment shall automatically be put to a vote after a three day period.
ii. a) If all amendments to the bill are withdrawn, the original bill is put to cessation.
iii) The question in the division lobby should be: “Should Bxxxx be amended to read as follows?”
iv) Votes on amendments to bills should last for two days, be public votes, but not contribute to the MP voting record.
v) Amendments to the original bill succeed if they achieve a simple majority in the division lobby.
vi) The author of the original bill may not withdraw the bill once amendments have been submitted to it, unless all authors of amendments to the bill agree to a withdrawal also.
vi. a.) Excluding the scenario outlines in 7.i.c.
vii) Following votes to amend the bill, the item is put into cessation for up to 7 days.

7) Successfully Amended bills will then be put to the house in a third reading.

i) Any member is able to submit the third reading of an amended bill provided that it satisfies the amendments made to it and changes nothing from the original bill besides the amendments made in the second reading.
i. a.) The original author of the bill must either permit the Speaker to accept a the third reading not produced by them, or produce a third reading themselves.
i. b.) If the original author does not produce a third reading by the end of the cessation period having not permitted the Speaker to accept other third readings, the Speaker may overrule and accept third readings not produced by the original author.
i. c.) If no third reading is submitted to the speaker by the end of the cessation period, the bill is withdrawn automatically.
ii) Where multiple successful amendments to a bill are conflicting, the amendment which received the most votes in the division lobby may be taken as the amended bill for the third reading.
ii. a.) In the event of a tie, the author of the original bill may select which amendment is to be taken as the amended bill.
ii. b.) Conflicting can be interpreted to mean that the amendment amends the same part of the bill, or that one amendment would render another impossible, or any other interpretation the Speaker may have.
iii) Where multiple successful amendments to a bill are made that are not conflicting, the complete revised bill must satisfy the proposer(s) of all successful amendments to the bill, along with the speaker. The complete revised bill may be submitted by any member.
iii. a.) The Speaker may overrule the dissatisfaction of amendment proposers with a proposed third reading of a bill if (s)he believes that such registrations of dissatisfaction are an attempt to block the progression of the bill unnecessarily.
iv) A bill which has entered a third reading will be put to a vote automatically after two days.
v) A bill which has entered a third reading cannot be withdrawn.
vi) A vote on a third reading of a bill must last for four days, with the question “Should this bill be made into law?”




Insert into the Guidance Document under Motions:

7) The same time scale procedures as Ministerial Reports apply




Change the Amendments Section of the Guidance Document as from:

6) The same time scale procedures as bills apply

to

6) The same time scale procedures as Ministerial Reports apply



Notes
Spoiler:
Show

Here is a diagram detailing the existing bill procedure in the house
Image


Here is a diagram detailing the proposed new bill procedure in the house
Image


This amendment does a few things. Firstly it removes the flimsy minimum/maximum periods for readings with exception of the first reading.

Secondly, and most significantly, it allows members of the house to disrupt the effects of a bill by submitting changes to bills they don't like and hoping others in the house who would oppose the original bill will support that amendment to it. Some people might call this an opportunity to work collaboratively, I personally think it's quite dangerous.

Clauses are in place to limit the abuse of this function, if an MP wishes to change the bill fundamentally then this should be rejected as part of 5.i and 5.ii.

Members should not be able to block amendments by withdrawing bills, hence the provision for this in 6.vi and 7.iii.a.

The other change of note is that this amendment would actually shorten the maximum length of time a bill may be within the system for (see diagram).

The idea of voting on amendments to bills and bills passing through more readings brings MHoC closer to the IRL Parliamentary format in some ways and further away in others, and the further away very much outweighs the closer because we have our own way of doing the closer already.

When voting on this amendment, members are encouraged to consider whether everyone in the house is capable of deciding when is an appropriate time to submit an amendment that is an improvement to a bill. Or, when is not an appropriate time to spam the forum with frivolous amendments for the sake of changing nothing but frustrating other members of the house and with the intention of making the game less enjoyable for others. The first reading of this amendment demonstrated that some members intend to do the latter for the purpose of destruction of other items. The author therefore encourages all members to oppose this motion, as its clear that not everyone in the house is capable of using these new procedures in the spirit that they are intended.


Changes for Second Reading:
Bill procedure was also amendment procedure in the existing GD, this has now been changed so that amendments follow the old bill procedure (more or less) which is details in the Ministerial Report.

The GD also currently provides no details regarding time scale procedures for motions. This amendment also fixes that. And if this amendment fails, the author will be submitting an additional amendment to rectify the aforementioned issue.

The notes have also been updated to satisfy the member who believes the entire debate was about half a sentence in the notes, rather than the actual amendment.

Subsection 5.v has been added.
Clause 6.vi.a has been added.
Clauses 7.i.a, 7.i.b and 7.i.c have been added.
Subsection 7.ii and 7.iii has been altered.
Clause 7.ii.b has been added.



0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
Still an aye! I like the competitiveness this introduces
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 months ago
#3
6 vi a is stupidly done, no reason not to make it a continuous part of 6vi

At the end of the day it is still a stupid amendment that doesn't really add anything other than an easy to abuse extra that wrends control away from creators and that the house will want rid of probably before the end of the term because it does nothing but create disjointed bills and forces things to division
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 months ago
#4
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
6 vi a is stupidly done, no reason not to make it a continuous part of 6vi

At the end of the day it is still a stupid amendment that doesn't really add anything other than an easy to abuse extra that wrends control away from creators and that the house will want rid of probably before the end of the term because it does nothing but create disjointed bills and forces things to division
So, no further issues then?
1
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 months ago
#5
I can see both sides tbh, not sure how I'll vote.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 months ago
#6
(Original post by 04MR17)
So, no further issues then?
More poorly written and the initial issues remain.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 months ago
#7
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I can see both sides tbh, not sure how I'll vote.
I'm Voting no. Feel free to join me. The house cannot be trusted to collectively hold power like this.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 months ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
More poorly written and the initial issues remain.
The initial issues simply being what this amendment does? Rather than any specific loopholes errors?
0
Moonbow
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 months ago
#9
I think it comes with risks, but if it makes it more similar to RL I’m happy to support this.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 months ago
#10
I've been op the opinion that the house needs to have an amendment procedure for some time so I will be voting in favour.
0
Bailey14
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 months ago
#11
I do think some form of amendments process is needed. Aye.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 months ago
#12
Still a no I’m afraid.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 months ago
#13
Mr Speaker, i shall still be voting No because this fundamentally does not address the flaws raised in the first reading (if they even can be). Indeed the change is so minor that this may as well have gone to division.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 months ago
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, i shall still be voting No because this fundamentally does not address the flaws raised in the first reading (if they even can be). Indeed the change is so minor that this may as well have gone to division.
I don't think it would have been wise to send this to division without a second reading given this now changes 2 more sections of the GD than it previously did.

What flaws still need addressing from the first reading besides the very concept? I thought I'd got them all.
0
El Salvador
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 months ago
#15
Does the amendment being the second reading mean the bill would go to a third reading if it's amended by the author?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 months ago
#16
(Original post by El Salvador)
Does the amendment being the second reading mean the bill would go to a third reading if it's amended by the author?
If it's amended by the author that amendment is counted as a second reading. The third reading is simply a compilation of all the amendments made.
0
AditOTAKU666
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 months ago
#17
Nope... A no from me
1
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 months ago
#18
I was just thinking about this, does it make sense to keep the second/third reading naming system for a new method of submitting bills? I think it runs the risk of causing confusion, considering these new 'readings' work considerably differently to the current system.

I would instead propose a:
Bxxxx - Bill to do [thing]
Bxxxx - Bill to do [thing] Amendment X
Bxxxx - Bill to do [thing] Amended
Last edited by Theloniouss; 2 months ago
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 months ago
#19
This item has now entered cessation.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#20
This item has been withdrawn.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (180)
14.5%
I'm not sure (57)
4.59%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (367)
29.57%
I have already dropped out (36)
2.9%
I'm not a current university student (601)
48.43%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed