Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A71 - Parliamentary Questions Amendment Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Proposer: aaran-j
    Seconders: cambo211 chiggy321, JakePearson, Teaddict

    Parliamentary Questions Amendment
    1. Amendment
    To insert into the Guiding Document, below the section entitled "Secretary of State Reports":

    Parliamentary Questions
    1) Any MP may ask the Speaker to table a parliamentary question to a Secretary of State.
    2) MP's must send their question to the Speaker, who will contact the appropriate Secretary of State for their answer.
    3) The Secretary of State shall have two days to respond to the Speaker.
    4) The Speaker shall post both the original question and the Secretary of State's response, in a new thread in the House at the time of the next HoC update.
    5) The thread shall remain open for one day, to allow MP's to post follow up questions and for the Secretary of State to respond to related questions.
    6) No individual Secretary of State may have more than two questions asked them per week. In the event that the Speaker receives more than two questions for an individual Secretary of State, only the first two questions received shall be asked.
    7) Only one parliamentary question thread may be open at any one time.
    8) In the event that the relevant Secretary of State is unavailable, questions may be answered by a relevant Minister of State as named by the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister.



    2. Other
    To instruct the Speaker to correct the following typo in the Guiding Document.

    Amendments
    6) The same time scale procedures as wills apply

    shall become:

    Amendments
    6) The same time scale procedures as bills apply


    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why not, sounds like a good idea to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    You should add "No individual MP may ask more than one question per month", otherwise we'll never stop hearing from certain MPs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe per fortnight? For the MP questions rule, a month seems a little too far.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    6) No individual Secretary of State may have more than two questions asked them per week. In the event that the Speaker receives more than two questions for an individual Secretary of State, only the first two questions received shall be asked.
    7) Only one parliamentary question thread may be open at any one time.
    Why?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Why?
    So that the House is not inundated with questions for a department and that Secretary is subsequently not inundated with questions that need answering.

    So as not to put unnecessary power in the Speaker's hands it's only fair if it's first-come-first served.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Saturation; if there are a load of questions being asked, nobody is going to pay attention to them and we'll have a load of threads with 3 or 4 posts in them, with more pressing concerns like Bills not being at the forefront.

    The longer between questions, the better the questions; we won't have some random UKIP idiot asking a question about east European food eating habits, as they'd consider it a waste of their responsibility.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chiggy321)
    So that the House is not inundated with questions for a department and that Secretary is subsequently not inundated with questions that need answering.
    Meh. I don't think this (or Indie's) argument is worth setting a precedent for limiting questions but it's valid. Fair enough.
    So as not to put unnecessary power in the Speaker's hands it's only fair if it's first-come-first served.
    And you propose to check up on the Speaker's inbox to ensure that this happens?

    /can of worms
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Meh. I don't think this (or Indie's) argument is worth setting a precedent for limiting questions but it's valid. Fair enough.And you propose to check up on the Speaker's inbox to ensure that this happens?

    /can of worms
    No however, I, and the rest of the House, have faith in the Speaker to act honestly, that's why the majority elected him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chiggy321)
    No however, I, and the rest of the House, have faith in the Speaker to act honestly, that's why the majority elected him.
    Not that I don't trust Mick (I do) but this isn't necessarily how it always works. For example, if someone PMs "Does the Foreign Secretary think that we should nuke those Asian ****ers" and gets in first, the Speaker would be negligent if he/she let that through.

    Now, this is moot because the Speaker is allowed to screw with the constitution for this reason at any time and there' no real way of checking it, but it's worth thinking about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, seems a good idea :yy:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Meh. I don't think this (or Indie's) argument is worth setting a precedent for limiting questions but it's valid. Fair enough.And you propose to check up on the Speaker's inbox to ensure that this happens?

    /can of worms
    Well, it's not really a precedent is it if the idea of questioning SoSs in their own threads is new itself. That's like saying, oh, I like your amendment idea, but I don't think its worth passing an amendment for...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Well, it's not really a precedent is it if the idea of questioning SoSs in their own threads is new itself.
    Pretty sure it isn't a new idea.

    EDIT: And this isn't what I was arguing either.
    That's like saying, oh, I like your amendment idea, but I don't think its worth passing an amendment for...
    Either you're stupid or I am and misunderstand you as I don't see the correlation.

    Or both :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Not that I don't trust Mick (I do) but this isn't necessarily how it always works. For example, if someone PMs "Does the Foreign Secretary think that we should nuke those Asian ****ers" and gets in first, the Speaker would be negligent if he/she let that through.

    Now, this is moot because the Speaker is allowed to screw with the constitution for this reason at any time and there' no real way of checking it, but it's worth thinking about.
    I think the speaker would be obliged to let it through. If it satisfied the criteria and providing it doesn't break any rules (I sense your example may) then it should be allowed to be posted. I think whoever asked it would come under immense scrutiny and any sensible party would expel the member immediately.

    However, the rule still stands. The relevant minister will have received a 'let off' if such a stupid question is posted.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Why?
    6. The two question limit would apply only to questions sent to the Speaker. MP's would still be allowed to ask further (related) questions in the thread. The limit of two questions per SoS, per week, is simply to stop individual SoS's being over-run with questions.

    7. It's currently the case that only one SoS report or budget thread may be open at any one time. As such, I thought it would be appropriate to include the same guidance for parliamentary questions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chiggy321)
    I think the speaker would be obliged to let it through. If it satisfied the criteria and providing it doesn't break any rules (I sense your example may) then it should be allowed to be posted. I think whoever asked it would come under immense scrutiny and any sensible party would expel the member immediately.

    However, the rule still stands. The relevant minister will have received a 'let off' if such a stupid question is posted.
    No, the Speaker is obliged to protect the House from that which will bring it in to disrepute. This includes the responsibility to make sure we don't break House rules (in conjunction with the mod). The Speaker is obliged to bend the constitution in such cases.
    (Original post by aaran-j)
    6. The two question limit would apply only to questions sent to the Speaker. MP's would still be allowed to ask further (related) questions in the thread. The limit of two questions per SoS, per week, is simply to stop individual SoS's being over-run with questions.

    7. It's currently the case that only one SoS report or budget thread may be open at any one time. As such, I thought it would be appropriate to include the same guidance for parliamentary questions.
    6) Oh, I'm stupid then. Carry on
    7) Hmm. I'd forgotten that rule, and don't like it, butit further moots my original point so ok.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    No, the Speaker is obliged to protect the House from that which will bring it in to disrepute. This includes the responsibility to make sure we don't break House rules (in conjunction with the mod). The Speaker is obliged to bend the constitution in such cases.6) Oh, I'm stupid then. Carry on
    7) Hmm. I'd forgotten that rule, and don't like it, butit further moots my original point so ok.
    I did mention in my post that the Speaker would only post questions that abide by the House's rules.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Pretty sure it isn't a new idea.

    EDIT: And this isn't what I was arguing either.Either you're stupid or I am and misunderstand you as I don't see the correlation.

    Or both :p:
    Just you I fear. You're using the word precedent in a very ambiguous manner there, if I were to take your implied usage, any amendment or bill would be classified as a precedent. When we're writing bills/amendments, one usually considers a precedent to be a decision made by the speaker where there has been nothing in the constitution to cover, or a decision which is made by a court.

    The amendment is a new idea, I've not seen this amendment proposed before, have you? You said
    Meh. I don't think this (or Indie's) argument is worth setting a precedent for limiting questions but it's valid. Fair enough
    So in the one sentence, you dismiss but also accept a point of view. Do make your mind up, and make it up a bit more clearly than that, before resorting to calling someone an idiot.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    No, the Speaker is obliged to protect the House from that which will bring it in to disrepute. This includes the responsibility to make sure we don't break House rules (in conjunction with the mod). The Speaker is obliged to bend the constitution in such cases.6) Oh, I'm stupid then. Carry on
    7) Hmm. I'd forgotten that rule, and don't like it, butit further moots my original point so ok.

    (Original post by chiggy321)
    I did mention in my post that the Speaker would only post questions that abide by the House's rules.
    The obvious way around this is to require all questions to be sent to the speaker in the Ask the Speaker thread, or even having a new Ask the speaker thread in the voting lobby, and that limits the possibility of idiots asking questions, as well as limiting the possibility of idiot MPs asking questions.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This is one of the coalition's idea which I did and do still agree with. Will definitely be an aye from me.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 23, 2010
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.

  • 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

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