I'm unconvinced by the justifications my colleague has made in introducing this bill, and alarmed by the expressed desire to chivvy us along with what can only be perceived as a threat to motion to expedite. While it did not, in the end, occur, it nonetheless seems highly irregular for a bill's own author to even allude to a desire to expedite, barring an outside event of great urgency and importance.
This is obviously not such a case.
My desire to expedite was based in there being likely little issue with this bill, and it being a rather routine amendment. Expedition of bills has, in the past, been routinely used for non-controversial or bills that are self evident or that require little debate. While this fell into disuse, this also occurred when the Speaker took on a less active role in the direct management of the Underhusen and when the Speaker lost the ability to expedite for some time, additionally with less active Underhusen sessions less people have been moving to expedite because of other concerns within the region.
I will additionally note that the reasoning behind this bill scarcely justifies it being written at all.
Subsection E, as it currently stands, is perfectly comprehensible. Dividing it will do little to improve comprehensibility, apart from breaking up a somewhat long but otherwise unremarkable subsection.
Moreover, the proposed revisions to Subsection A could well be argued to be covered by Section 7a of the Procedural Rules in the first place.
While Subsection E is comprehensible, it does not fit with the formatting of the surrounding sections. It's the only combined section within Section 14, if not the entire document, and honestly gains from being separated. It, additionally, makes it easier to potentially amend or change one of the sections without the other. My initial purpose for combining the two was simply because I was afraid I was adding too much in my first amendment, so I decided to combine those two sections, which was an error.
As for the amendment to Section 7(a), while it could be argued, that is the issue though. There are alternative readings that could lead to each Speaker taking a different approach to the issue, and I do believe the Overhusen should have little say in the procedural and local matters of the Underhusen, much like I would say the reverse. Additionally that section
should have been amended in the initial amendment, however I had overlooked it. These motions are unique and no other motion works the same as these, given that these prompt a vote. Before his Honourable Lordship responds with the fact that, at one point in this institution's history, votes were had for motions to table, motions to table only require more than half to pass, and the votes themselves were awkward which is why they were discontinued.
Ordinarily, I'd motion to table what otherwise appears to be a naked attempt to gain political legitimacy by passing unimportant legislation in order to create a false impression of 'activity', which is a common point of criticism of this institution.
However, evidently, the Speaker is convinced that this legislation is somehow important, and so I invite my colleague to provide further detail as to why she believes this to be the case.
Thus, motion to extend debate.
It helps enforce a more consistent style throughout the Procedural Rules, clarifies points that were somewhat vague, and additionally fixes an error that I introduced because of my own insecurities about the length of the original amendment that introduced the Officers.
In any case, the motion to extend debate is recognized.
