Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In the Guidance Document it is said a government will consist of a Prime Minister, a Chancellor, and a Home Secretary with all other cabinet positions decided by the government. In amendment VA160 all key cabinet ministers must hold a question time, the amendment continues to list who the key ministers are, does that mean in a situation where the government does not have the ministers listed, does the second part of VA160 become meaningless, or is a government obliged to fill the cabinet positions the amendment names?

    The second question I have: now a government is obliged to hold a minimum of 12 question times in one term, does the tendency to hold question times in the final three quarters of the term when the government has started doing things, and the government's private forum has been set up, remove the need to have another thread for questioning the government?

    A third question is about your approach to the amendment: if the government has not started a question time thread that month, will you as Speaker force the government to hold a question time thread by setting one up against the will of the Prime Minister?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    In the Guidance Document it is said a government will consist of a Prime Minister, a Chancellor, and a Home Secretary with all other cabinet positions decided by the government. In amendment VA160 all key cabinet minister must hold a question time, the amendment continues to list who the key ministers are. In a situation where the government does not have the ministers listed, does the second part of VA160 become meaningless, or is a government obliged to fill the cabinet positions the amendment names?

    The second question I have: now a government is obliged to hold a minimum of 12 question times in one term, does the tendency to hold question times in the final three quarters of the term when the government has started doing things, and the government's private forum has been set up, remove the need to have another thread for questioning the government?

    A third question is about your approach to the amendment: if the government has not started a question time thread that month, will you as Speaker force the government to hold a question time thread by setting one up against the will of the Prime Minister?
    I am going to break my own precedent of not commenting on amendments that have passed or failed here and express my dismay that the House has chosen to pass this overly inflexible codifying amendment. It's not long ago that many disliked and discouraged the holding of departmental question times other than PMQs altogether. I can only suggest it might be due to those who have not had the experience at the top of government.

    As I recall (I wrote that particular bit of GD IIRC) the government requires a PM and ministers responsible for the Treasury, Home Office and FCO, without specifically naming those ministerial positions. I would suggest that at least whilst I am in the Chair, the requirement to hold a question time for a position that a government chooses not to fill will be waived, and I will be allowing governments a certain flexibility over whether they choose to hold a formal question time where they allow ample other opportunities to ask questions.

    I agree that the distribution of question times evenly across term is daft given activity, and in particular government activity, is not distributed evenly. (Though we of course always hope for a prompt clearing and reassigning of the government subforum, it doesn't necessarily always happen.)

    It would be quite absurd to force the PM to hold a PMQs – because of course there is no mechanism to force the PM to answer the questions put to them (and frankly nor should there be, bar regular VoNC procedures). We would risk a situation whereby the Speaker opens a thread and questions are posted and left unanswered until the end of the session, so it is important that the PM or minister is on board with the session otherwise there is little point in doing it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Hansards nee updating.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Hansards nee updating.
    Yep, I've not forgotten, I'm going to do it in one fell swoop when the term ends.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    As I'm considering the timings for the wash-up period now, I will share them with the House.

    Wednesday 26 October – General election called
    Thursday 27 October – Deadline for submission of new items
    Friday 28 October – Deadline for submission of second / third readings of items
    Saturday 29 October – Deadline to send items to vote, items not send to vote withdrawn
    Wednesday 2 November – Votes close, MP usergroup cleared and GE voting begins
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    So MP seats won't be confirmed until probably the 11th?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    So MP seats won't be confirmed until probably the 11th?
    It depends how prompt the CT are, they will be confirmed as soon as possible after the 9th.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    As I'm considering the timings for the wash-up period now, I will share them with the House.

    Wednesday 26 October – General election called
    Thursday 27 October – Deadline for submission of new items
    Friday 28 October – Deadline for submission of second / third readings of items
    Saturday 29 October – Deadline to send items to vote, items not send to vote withdrawn
    Wednesday 2 November – Votes close, MP usergroup cleared and GE voting begins
    As a technicality the submission deadline is typically the moment that you announce the general election as parliament is dissolved. I'm also pretty sure that bar division parliament can't start new readings.

    Your choice however.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Please explain why my amendment which changes the entire role of the Crisis Committee to form a new committee was rejected, but a smaller amendment to change one little part of the Crisis Committee about powers the Crisis Committee's Chairperson has is acceptable.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Please explain why my amendment which changes the entire role of the Crisis Committee to form a new committee was rejected, but a smaller amendment to change one little part of the Crisis Committee about powers the Crisis Committee's Chairperson has is acceptable.
    Because your amendment effectively removed all of the significance of the CC – to use your own words "In this different amendment, the Crisis Committee is changed to be something so banal, trivial, powerless, and pointless that the Crisis Committee is effectively abolished."

    We've just had an abolition amendment and it failed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Because your amendment effectively removed all of the significance of the CC – to use your own words "In this different amendment, the Crisis Committee is changed to be something so banal, trivial, powerless, and pointless that the Crisis Committee is effectively abolished."

    We've just had an abolition amendment and it failed.
    But as the Speaker you should not be using the justification for an amendment to stop an amendment, you should be using the content of the amendment to see if the amendment is significantly different. When a majority of MPs are against the Crisis Committee, it is acceptable to see an amendment that does not abolish the Crisis Committee but reforms it to create something that may work. When more MPs are against the Crisis Committee than support the Crisis Committee, allowing an amendment which the minority of MPs have an interest in does not make sense.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    In what I can see, I agree with Nigel here - if the amendment keeps the CC, just changes what it does, then that it incredibly different from abolishing the CC, and thus, the amendment should be allowed.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    In what I can see, I agree with Nigel here - if the amendment keeps the CC, just changes what it does, then that it incredibly different from abolishing the CC, and thus, the amendment should be allowed.
    I'll post the amendment in rejected submissions (which I forgot to do when I rejected it) but you'll see it was a clear attempt to close the CC in all but name (subforum included).
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I'll post the amendment in rejected submissions (which I forgot to do when I rejected it) but you'll see it was a clear attempt to close the CC in all but name (subforum included).
    Tbf though, if the amendment didn't actually remove the CC, then that's very different from the abolishment of the CC, and should've been put forward to the House for the MPs to vote on.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Tbf though, if the amendment didn't actually remove the CC, then that's very different from the abolishment of the CC, and should've been put forward to the House for the MPs to vote on.
    Proposed: Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP)
    Seconded: adam9317 (Con), Mobbsy91 (Con), Unown Uzer (UKIP), balanced (UKIP)

    Change Cisis Committee in the Guidance Document from:

    (1) A crisis committee should be formed during each Parliament, consisting of 9 members
    (1.1) 1 member from each party
    (1.2) The Speaker and Deputy Speaker
    (1.3) The Foreign Secretary
    (2) It would be the job of this Crisis Committee to come up with hypothetical events for the TSR Government to act on and react to. This could include anything from Natural Disasters to Terrorist Attacks.*
    (3) It would be at the Crisis Committee's discretion whether to work with the MUN to possible create other international scenarios. This could include a full-blown war or even stolen nuclear missiles.
    (4) Real life events could also be included at the discretion of the Crisis committee.
    (5) The Crisis Committee would be expected to produce a minimum of 6 of their own hypothetical scenarios.
    (5.1) There is no upper limit on the amount of scenarios the committee can produce
    (6) Exceptions can be granted to parties who feel they cannot fulfil the requirement, based on whether this will influence the outcome unfairly.

    To:

    (1) A crisis committee shall be formed during each Parliament, consisting of 9 members
    (1.1) One member from each part, the Speaker, and Deputy Speaker.
    (2) The Crisis Committee shall be used at the government's request to help draw up policy proposals to an event deemed a disaster by the government. The Crisis Committee only operates on request on the government.
    (2.1) There is no requirement for the government to use the Crisis Committee, nor is there a requirement for the government to follow the policy proposals of the Crisis Committee.
    (3) The Crisis Committee shall not have a private sub-forum, a chairperson, nor any official role when its use is not being requested by the government.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Proposed: Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP)
    Seconded: adam9317 (Con), Mobbsy91 (Con), Unown Uzer (UKIP), balanced (UKIP)

    Change Cisis Committee in the Guidance Document from:

    (1) A crisis committee should be formed during each Parliament, consisting of 9 members
    (1.1) 1 member from each party
    (1.2) The Speaker and Deputy Speaker
    (1.3) The Foreign Secretary
    (2) It would be the job of this Crisis Committee to come up with hypothetical events for the TSR Government to act on and react to. This could include anything from Natural Disasters to Terrorist Attacks.*
    (3) It would be at the Crisis Committee's discretion whether to work with the MUN to possible create other international scenarios. This could include a full-blown war or even stolen nuclear missiles.
    (4) Real life events could also be included at the discretion of the Crisis committee.
    (5) The Crisis Committee would be expected to produce a minimum of 6 of their own hypothetical scenarios.
    (5.1) There is no upper limit on the amount of scenarios the committee can produce
    (6) Exceptions can be granted to parties who feel they cannot fulfil the requirement, based on whether this will influence the outcome unfairly.

    To:

    (1) A crisis committee shall be formed during each Parliament, consisting of 9 members
    (1.1) One member from each part, the Speaker, and Deputy Speaker.
    (2) The Crisis Committee shall be used at the government's request to help draw up policy proposals to an event deemed a disaster by the government. The Crisis Committee only operates on request on the government.
    (2.1) There is no requirement for the government to use the Crisis Committee, nor is there a requirement for the government to follow the policy proposals of the Crisis Committee.
    (3) The Crisis Committee shall not have a private sub-forum, a chairperson, nor any official role when its use is not being requested by the government.
    I would say this is sufficiently different from the abolishment of the CC, as it changes the way the CC works, rather than gets rid of it. The main difference being crises can be submitted still.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I would say this is sufficiently different from the abolishment of the CC, as it changes the way the CC works, rather than gets rid of it. The main difference being crises can be submitted still.
    Crises are submitted to the CC by the government as I read that amendment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the current and former Speakers and Deputy Speakers for their management of the business of the MHofC during my time here which is now ending. Please give them in future the support that is due to them in what is at times a difficult task given that some members occasionally throw proverbial toys out of their prams at some decisions.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather Nige waited until next term in the hope that the electoral math was on his side for a plain abolition.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'd rather Nige waited until next term in the hope that the electoral math was on his side for a plain abolition.
    I really doubt the right will get/fill anything like the 34 seats needed.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.