Ün proxhet per inovar el CRL

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Ün proxhet [legeu] per inovar el CRL - The Update of the CRL Bill [Act].

WHEREAS given tha nature of the Ziu, it is important to try to improve the quality of legislation;

WHEREAS the CRL's task in the legislative process should not be a duplication of the Hopper but should be focused primarily on the technical quality of legislation;

WHEREAS it is better to make this purposes explicit in the law;

WHEREAS it is considered appropriate for Scribery to fulfil its advisory role in this regard already provided for in Lexh.C.1.3.2;

WHEREAS in view of the other tasks of the Mençéi and the Túischac'h, it is appropriate to add potential felxibility providing for the possibility to appoint a Senator or MC to carry out their role in the CRL on the condition that they remain the ex officio members so that the CRL always has a quorum and that they can revoke this delegation at any time;

BE IT ENACTED by Regeu, Cosă and Senäts in Ziu assembled that Lexhatx § H.6.5 which currently reads

6.5. A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
6.5.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.5.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.5.3. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 MC and at least 1 Senator.

is amended to read as follows:

6.5. For each Cosă term is created a Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu (in english Legislative Advisory Committee),  hereinafter "the CRL", which shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
    6.5.1 The main, but not exclusive, purpose of the CRL, with the assistance of the Scribery, shall be to evaluate bills from the technical point of view of the quality of the legislation, the correctness of the language, the internal consistency of the document and consistency with existing legislation.
    6.5.2. The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
    6.5.3. Ex officio members of the CRL are the incumbent Avocat-Xheneral, Mençéi and Túischac'h.
          6.5.3.1. The Mençéi and the Túischac'h may at any time appoint and dismiss one Senator and one Membreu dal Cosă, respectively, to serve as a member of the CRL in their place.
    6.5.4. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 Membreu dal Cosă and 1 Senator.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Üc R. Tärfâ (MC, FREEDEM)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Could you expand on the purpose of this bill? It seems fairly harmless, as far as I can tell, but I'm curious about why you think it's necessary.

If it's not too much trouble, I think we're trying to make it a matter of common good practice, also, to include the existing language so that MZ's can easily see what is being changed.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Could you expand on the purpose of this bill? It seems fairly harmless, as far as I can tell, but I'm curious about why you think it's necessary.

On the possibilty to appoint and dismiss I believe it is self-explanatory. It's good that there are ex officio members, but I think it is positive to leave the door open to have that possibility. It doesn't mean that they should do, but it gives the possibilty to do it.

On the new subsection, maybe I'll change "solely" with "mainly". I believe to be good to state that the focus of the CRL should be mainly on the quality of the legislation rather than the contents of it, in order to better achieve the desirable goal of better quality.

With "mainly" is more evident the goal of the CRL to improve our legislative process in order to avoid that this part is overlooked, don't you think?

If it's not too much trouble, I think we're trying to make it a matter of common good practice, also, to include the existing language so that MZ's can easily see what is being changed.

Fair point.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

So the purpose of the bill is just to make it possible for the Tui and Mencei to appoint substitutes in their place?

[Üc R. Tärfă]

It adds flexibility, potential, which is always a good thing and better indicates and defines the role of the CRL in the legislative process. It is merely an ameliorative change, nothing radical.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

It adds flexibility, potential, which is always a good thing and better indicates and defines the role of the CRL in the legislative process. It is merely an ameliorative change, nothing radical.

I am still not clear on the purpose of this legislation, Üc. Can you expand on why you think this is necessary? To clarify, I'm asking if the incumbent Tui or Mencei have indicated a need for this.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

The purpose is the one I already explained, I didn't spoke neither with the Mençéi nor the Túischac'h.

It's just me strongly beleiving that to have flexibility in the law, whether used or not, is always a good thing. It could be useful, and there could be situations where it would be useful and it's good to already have it rather than saying "there isn't we should add it. What if, let's say just for example, 2 of them are in unavailable in the same time and cannot use Witt, or just one of them and the A-X is also unavailable for a time? With this provision it would be possible not to halt the legislative process (or delay it for a Clark) simply because one of them is unavailable for whatever reasons (just like the Regency I'd say).

The fact that there's a clause allowing that flexibility, doesn't mean that it should be used. It's there, it can be used if necessary or not.

That's the part on the flexibility.

On the other part, I think it's self-explanatory. To better highlight one of the focus of the CRL work.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I didn't spoke neither with the Mençéi nor the Túischac'h.

It's just me strongly beleiving that to have flexibility in the law, whether used or not, is always a good thing. It could be useful, and there could be situations where it would be useful and it's good to already have it rather than saying "there isn't we should add it. What if, let's say for example, 2 of them are in holiday in the same time and cannot use Witt, or just one of them and the A-X is also unavailable for a time? With this provision it would be possible not to halt the legislative process (or delay it for a Clark) simply because one of them is unavailable for whatever reasons (just like the Regency I'd say).

The fact that there's a clause allowing that flexibility, doesn't mean that it should be used. It's there, it can be used if necessary or not.

That's the part on the flexibility.

On the other part, I think it's self-explanatory. To better highlight one of the focus of the CRL work.

Edited on review. I withdraw my concern. Thanks for the explanation.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I like a lot of this, but I am disinclined right now to support the section advising the scope of the CRL's review.  I agree with the general idea; the CRL should be focused on form and consistency (as my CRL comments have occasionally shown). But I can see a lot of other possibilities for the CRL (if it's going to continue to exist at all).  The subcommittee function suggests efforts to combine different bills or deal with conflicts between proposals in an orderly way, for example.

I'd ask you to soften the language of this provision to make it considerably more gentle, if you can.  A suggestion, rather than directions, about the main focus of the committee.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Something like "The primarily focus bla bla shall be on etc etc"?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd even just use, "It is suggested that the CRL, with the assistance of the Scribery, shall evaluate the bills mainly from..."  Would that be okay?

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Mmm... I don't like the idea of laws "suggesting" or "encouraging" institutions to do something, it's just on the verb used not the concept of soften it.

The main, but not exclusive, purpose of the CRL, with the assistance of the Scribery, shall be to evaluate bills from the technical point of view of the quality of the legislation, the correctness of the language, the internal consistency of the document and consistency with existing legislation.

Does it sound softer? English nuances might escape me, but it sounds softer to me.