House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Apr 1993

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn : Yes, of course I shall, especially in the light of the hon. Gentleman's intervention yesterday.

Column 331

Mr. Kirkwood : If the right hon. Gentleman is successful in browbeating the Chairman of Ways and Means into doing what he thinks is not right, does he believe that using majority power in the House to affect the decision of the Chair is in the interest of minority parties?

Mr. Benn : If I ever had the power to browbeat the Chairman or anyone else, I might have been tempted to do that. I am inviting the House to do what it does every day--to reach a judgment on whether it agrees with a proposal that is before it. I do not know what ideas the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has about how Parliament should be resolved. However, if he does not want majorities to decide, the place should be packed up and given over-- [Interruption.] Elections determine the majority and minority parties.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : This is a serious point, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will treat it as such. If it is the right hon. Gentleman's case that majorities should always decide what amendments are selected, in normal circumstances that means that the Government will decide every amendment that comes before the House.

Mr. Benn : The hon. Gentleman is assuming that the Chairman is not independent. The purpose in my proposal is to keep him independent. The House cannot close a debate without a vote, but it is prepared to give the Chairman the right to deny a vote without support. That is the point and the issue.

I know that the atmosphere is highly charged, that the media claim that we are Euro-sceptics and that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has suddenly become a Euro-sceptic because he believes that this is an important parliamentary point. It is an important parliamentary point. In my opinion, it will damage the understanding of our proceedings among the people we represent. With the best will in the world--I have touched on it already--I cannot explain to people outside who want the social chapter to apply in Britain why one Member of the House, the Chairman, can say that it was not workable or understandable.

I am an old parliamentarian. I once moved a motion of this character because the Speaker refused me an emergency debate when military action was contemplated in Oman. I know that, for many hon. Members, procedure is dull and irrelevant. However, I believe that democracy is about procedure. It is not about what we decide, but about how we decide it. That is what the whole democratic argument is about.

Perhaps I am a sentimentalist, but I deeply believe that we have one responsibility above all others, and that is to pass on to those who come after us a decent democratic machinery which can be used by them as we have used it. That democratic machinery allows us to table amendments and have them considered, voted upon and so on. I finish as I did 35 years ago, when I moved a similar motion against Mr. Speaker Morrison. When all the speeches are forgotten, when the election manifestos are in the British Library, when the Queen's Speeches have disappeared and the Bills have been repealed, "Erskine May" is what this place is about, because it gives us the machinery to decide what we were elected to do. If that is denied by an error of judgment--no more than that--by a Chairman, I think that we shall pay a heavy price for it in future.

Column 332

4.7 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I hope it will be thought right, MadamSpeaker, that I should rise at once to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and to set out some of the considerations which I believe the House should have in mind in judging what he has said and the motion he has brought before the House.

I do not think that I need to make a long speech, because it seems to me that the central issue is simple and clear : it is the issue of the authority of the Chair, and therefore its capacity to discharge effectively, on behalf of the House as a whole--not least the minority parties--the difficult task which the House as a whole has laid on it.

I note, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to resist that suggestion, but I must say frankly that I do not think he has done so successfully. Nor do I think he can, because in signalling the appearance of this motion, he could not have made his intention clearer, when he asked the Chairman :

"If a motion of this kind is tabled, may I take it that you would not feel able to take the Chair of the Committee until the matter was resolved?"-- [ Official Report, 19 April 1993 ; Vol. 223, c. 41.] Against that background, no amount of disclaimer, in whatever measured language, can alter the basic fact that the effect, and the intended effect, of this motion is to render it impossible for the Chairman to perform the duties that the House has laid on him unless and until it is defeated or withdrawn. As I said, that is the central issue which the House must resolve--whether it is to sustain the authority of the Chair to do its job.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : I am surprised by the line that the right hon. Gentleman is taking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) used words which are his. Is the Leader of the House saying that, on that Monday when we pursued points of order and had a debate, there was no difference whatever in the accession of the Chair to what we were putting to him or his attitude to us? I put it to the right hon. Gentleman--he was not here, as many hon. Members were not here--that that was no different, because we respect the authority of the Chair in general. It is a matter of judgment on a single issue.

Mr. Newton : I do not accept that for a moment. Although I was not present throughout, I have carefully studied the lengthy points of order that were raised not only on Monday but on other occasions. If I may say so, the Chairman has listened and responded to those points of order with great care and courtesy.

There is the world of difference between legitimately putting points of order to the Chairman, albeit over a long period, and tabling a motion of this sort, which is, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield made absolutely clear in his remarks on Monday, intended to make it impossible for the Chairman to function as the Chairman unless it has been disposed of.

Before I return to that matter, I should say something about the motion. I realise that, in many ways, it is not the central issue. Apart from anything else, it seems to reflect some misapprehension about the procedures of the House with respect to the selection of amendments. I think that this will be common ground.

Standing Order No. 31 is clear : in the Committee of the whole House, the Chairman is given the power--the right

Column 333

hon. Gentleman fairly said that it is an entirely unfettered power--to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed. That is understood. However, it seemed to render fairly meaningless the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to present his motion as some form of appeal or exercise of appeal rights. If he wishes to institute a right of appeal he should seek to change the Standing Order rather than table motions that criticise the Chair.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Can my right hon. Friend tell me where Standing Order No. 31 gives the right certainly with respect to the selection of amendments and with it the right to choose whether a Division will take place? On page 405 of "Erskine May" and the sub-notes, can he tell me where the practice which has grown up is set out as to the question whether a specific matter should be subjected to a Division? If he would be good enough to do that, I would be interested to hear his comments.

Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is accepting what I said about Standing Order No. 31, which I shall read to him if he wishes. Sub-section (2) of that Standing Order is absolutely clear :

"In committee of the whole House, the Chairman of Ways and Means and either Deputy Chairman shall have the like power"--

to the Speaker in other circumstances--

"to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed".

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield also quoted from page 405 of "Erskine May" :

"It is a common practice to allow several amendments to be discussed together, although they have not all been selected to be moved. The Speaker or chairman may at his discretion call for division one or more of those amendments selected for debate with another or other amendments, if requested to do so."

The key words are "at his discretion".

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton : No, I will not give way for the moment.

What seems less clear to some, to judge both from the terms of the motion and some of the points of order made recently, is that the power of selection is separate from what the Chairman does when he groups amendments for debate. When he groups amendments, he calls the lead amendment--that is, he selects it under the provisions of Standing Order No. 31--and tells the Committee that, for the convenience of debate, he will allow the discussion of other amendments appearing later on the Order Paper.

Thus, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Chairman of Ways and Means had selected amendment No. 27, that was not strictly the case. As I have just said, the occupant of the Chair selects an amendment when he calls an hon. Member to move it so that the House or Committee can take a decision on it. Amendment No. 27 has not been moved : it was grouped for debate with another amendment on which the Committee has voted.

Nor is it correct to say, as the motion does, that it was contrary to the normal practice not to allow a Division to take place on an amendment which has been debated. Many amendments are grouped for debate with selected amendments ; whether they are subsequently selected for a

Column 334

separate Division is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, as is clear from the extract that I have just quoted from "Erskine May". There is nothing automatic about it.

So when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield claims that the Chair's ruling has some great long-term significance for parliamentary debates on all future legislation, his argument simply does not stand up. The exercise of the Chairman's discretion in respect of amendment No. 27 has been entirely in accordance with the practice of the House, and his ruling has no long-term significance of the nature that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Benn : If what the Leader of the House says is to be accepted, the Chairman could have given a simple answer. He could have said, "I will not allow a vote on the amendment. I did not select it." But he did not say that. He said that the amendment was not understandable or workable. That is the difficulty, because "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Speaker or Chairman does not give reasons. I can understand the reason why they do not give reasons. The reasons given in this case were wholly different from the ones which the Leader of the House has cooked up to resist the motion.

Mr. Newton : These are not arguments that I have cooked up, but ones on which I have taken careful advice. They represent a straightforward description, as I understand it and as I am advised, of the procedural position in respect of the amendment.

I should make just one other point about the motion. It is the one brought out by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, in her intervention during my business statement yesterday, and acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield today. It is the simple fact that, because the Committee has finished with the clauses of the Bill and is dealing with the new clauses, it is not possible for the Chairman to do as the motion asks. Indeed, amendment No. 27 has disappeared from the amendment paper.

The whole House knows that it is not the technicalities that are at issue here : it is the fundamental purpose and effect of the motion to which I referred earlier. The House has placed on the Chairman difficult and demanding responsibilities, within terms of reference which the House itself has determined. It has asked him to undertake those responsibilities during proceedings as difficult as any a Chairman has had to face for a long time.

For my part, I will say simply that, on all I have heard, seen and read in Hansard of those proceedings, he has exercised his responsibilities, whether in selecting and grouping amendments, listening and responding to many representations and innumerable points of order, or simply presiding over debate, with great care, great diligence and courtesy.

It is not a question whether any or all of us have liked each and every decision. The Chairman's is in some ways a role which produces a variant of one of the oldest political adages : it is a job in which you cannot please anyone all the time. There have been decisions unpalatable to those who want the social chapter and decisions unpalatable to those who do not. There have been decisions unpalatable to those who strongly support the Bill

Column 335

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Newton : No, I will not give way for the moment--and decisions unpalatable to those who vigorously oppose it. That is the nature of the job. As the Chairman himself put it in responding to a point of order on Monday :

"I must and do take every factor into consideration, but at the end of the day the buck stops here : I have to choose the amendments."--[ Official Report, 19 April 1993 ; Vol. 223,c. 44.]

The point could not have been put better than it was by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) yesterday. He said that the motion sought to establish a dangerous precedent for the House, would have serious implications for the Chair, and is highly unfair to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has conducted himself with good humour and tolerance.

The question for the House is whether it will reject the challenge which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has mounted to the support which the Chairman is entitled to expect, both when we like his decisions and when we do not. If the motion is not withdrawn, as it should be, I urge the House to reject it, and reject it decisively.

4.19 pm

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South) : All of us in the House are conscious of the importance of the relationship, balanced as it is between conflict and confidence, that exists between the House and the Chair. As the Leader of the House has just acknowledged, there cannot be an hon. Member here who has not, from time to time, disagreed with a decision of the Chair, even if it is only that the hon. Member believes that the occupant of the Chair has failed to recognise that the debate in hand would be immeasurably enriched by his or her contribution. Equally, every Member recognises the good faith and integrity that the occupants of the Chair bring to their onerous and difficult duties, and the extent to which those duties place them at the centre of the storm when difficult and contentious decisions arise. One such decision and one such ruling is cited in the motion that we are debating.

The whole House and many in the country are well aware that the announcement that there would not be an opportunity for the Committee to vote on amendment No. 27 on the social chapter has caused widespread concern on both sides. That concern was fully expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Foreign Secretary, when the ruling was first given on 30 March. You, Madam Speaker, and the House will recall that further concern was expressed at length in our debates on 15 April and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland moved on that day to report progress on the Bill so that a sustained debate could be held in which our grave concern could be--and was --fully expressed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made it clear then, and we have repeatedly sought to make it clear since, that we are still seeking and will continue to seek an opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 before the Bill completes all the stages of its passage through the House. We look for the opportunity for that vote on the Report stage of the Bill, on which decisions have yet to be made.

Column 336

With all respect to the care and devotion shown by the Chairman of Ways and Means in his conduct of the Committee stage, which we do not criticise--I was pleased by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he moved the motion --we do not accept that amendment No. 27 and new clauses 74 or 75 are alternatives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland explicitly made that case, as can be seen in Hansard. He said :

"I do not regard new clause 74"--

or 75--

"as an alternative to amendment No. 27, nor do I believe that it can be reasonably or realistically posed in those terms."--[ Official Report, 19 April 1993 ; Vol. 223, c. 39.]

Sir David Steel : Will the right hon. Lady clear up one point? When he moved the motion, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) did not refer to the narrative of how new clauses 74 and 75 appeared on the amendment paper. If the Opposition were so confident of amendment No. 27, why did they table the two new clauses?

Mrs. Beckett : If the right hon. Gentleman had been attending the debates, I am sure that he would know the answer to that question, which is that we regard the subjects covered in the amendment and the new clauses as entirely separate issues. I shall return to that issue later. We believe that the new clauses and the amendment are complementary.

Concern has been expressed that a precedent might be set by the handling of amendment No. 27. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield referred a number of times to the use of the words "workable and acceptable". We can all understand that there might be concern about the juxtaposition of a vote on amendment No. 27 and new clause 75. I am not suggesting that that was the reason for the ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, because, as we all know, for reasons that we all understand, the Chair does not give reasons for his or her decisions.

However, the argument might have been considered whereby it was thought that if amendment No. 27 were carried--removing the social protocol--it might remove the occasion for a vote on new clause 75. I can well understand that concern. However, we remain of the view that it would have been quite practical and possible for amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 to be debated separately, and that the one did not require a different decision from the other.

Mr. Dalyell : My right hon. Friend rightly said that the Chair does not normally give reasons, but part of the trouble is that the Chairman of Ways and Means, wisely or not, appeared on the Scottish television programme, "Scottish Lobby" on 18 April and gave his reasons. I quote from his script :

"And just on balance, because it was slightly more workable, I chose to have the debate on new clause 75."

This may be part of the hazard of the Chairman going on television, but a reason was given.

Mrs. Beckett : I would not criticise the Chairman of Ways and Means for his remarks which were no doubt intended to elucidate for the viewer what on earth it is we are going on about in here. I well understand his difficulty in doing so without straying into the territory that my hon. Friend has quoted. However, it would not be right for us to suggest, and I am sure that my hon. Friend did not

Column 337

mean to do so, that the Chairman had strayed into giving reasons, as that would be a precedent and we all recognise that such a precedent should be avoided.

The Leader of the House said that the motion was not about the technicalities of the issue. I take his point, but he went on to defend at length the judgment that has been made on the vote on amendment No. 27. I must therefore say to him and to the House that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made crystal clear from the Front Bench on behalf of the official Opposition on 19 April, we have not accepted that an amendment that is in order, has been debated and has the official backing of the Opposition--it is tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition --should not be available for decision in the Committee. We do not accept that such a precedent has been set.

We had every reason to expect that there would be a Division. The Chairman of Ways and Means said in Committee :

"We are some way off a vote on amendment No. 27."--[ Official Report, 22 February 1993 ; Vol. 219, c. 685.]

That carries the connotation that there would be a Division and at that stage no one expected that there would not be a Division on amendment No. 27. He then suggested on television on 18 April that a Division on the amendment might have been expected at one stage. That is the real significance that we attach to the Chairman's remark. It immeasurably strengthens the case for a vote on amendment No. 27 on Report, which is perhaps a way of tidying up this extremely difficult matter.

As was identified yesterday and reiterated by the Leader of the House today, we cannot now proceed, whether or not it is desirable, in the manner proposed by the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. "Erskine May" makes it absolutely plain on page 496 that once the Chairman has put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill-- and the Question was put on Monday-- "No other amendment can be proposed to a clause after this question has been proposed from the Chair."

My right hon. Friend suggested that some procedural method might be found, but he also suggested that we should take "Erskine May" as our bible and "Erskine May" leaves us in no doubt on the matter. That means that the question of an understanding approach to the desire of a majority in the House to decide on amendment No. 27 on Report--we know that there is a majority in the House, because otherwise we would not be having all this difficulty today--must inform our debate and decision.

That brings me to my final point which I hope will be borne in mind, especially by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) sought to place the blame for these difficulties at the door of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had incredible nerve. The scale of the difficulties faced by the Chairman of Ways and Means is the Government's creation.

It was the Government who claimed that amendment No.27 would wreck the Bill and the treaty. It was they who then claimed that, on the contrary, it would make no difference. It was they who brought in the Attorney-General, who failed to answer fully half the questions put

Column 338

to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), to tell us that this was all of no significance. It was the Government, in the shape of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who went about their usual business of placing ideas in the minds of the Lobby and everyone else to the effect that the Opposition must find another way of raising these issues. And then the Government have the nerve to come to the House and ask why we sought to find other ways to raise them.

Sir David Steel : Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett : I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman once and I have answered his point. I am almost at the end of my remarks and I do not want to take up too much time. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and be able to make his own speech.

It is the Government, too, who, since the other new clauses have been tabled, have not only continued to cast doubt on the validity of a vote on amendment No. 27 but have claimed that every other amendment or new clause tabled by the Opposition is in some way ineffective. I am certain that it is not the desire of the Chair, but it is most certainly the desire of the Government, to prevent the House from reaching a decision on the social chapter or, if they cannot prevent it, to find a way of discounting or ignoring it. Their manoeuvrings are the direct cause of the difficulties that have understandably been experienced by the Chairman of Ways and Means. For that reason, because we cannot do what the motion suggests, because the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 is not yet completely lost to us, and because of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield about the respect in which the Chairman of Ways and Means is held in every part of the House, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will follow the usual precedent once concerns of this nature have been aired in debate in the Chamber. I must tell the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that these concerns have been aired on a number of occasions before--by the official Opposition when the Conservative party was the Opposition, by ourselves, and by Back Bench Members on both sides of the House. The phenomenon is not unknown, but usually when such concerns have been aired and such a debate has been held, the motion is either withdrawn or negated by voice only and not pressed to a Division.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield told the House that the only way to bring the matter before the House and to express concern was to table the motion. That is his view ; it may or may not be the view of all Members. Unquestionably, however, he is not required to press the motion to a Division because he has brought it before the House, and I hope that he will not do so. If he chooses to do so, I must tell him that I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you to rule on a matter? I regret having to do so, but you are the only person in a position to make such a ruling.

All three speakers so far have referred to a Report stage for the Bill. I want you to rule on whether the Report stage of a Bill that has been considered in a Committee of the whole House is different from the Report stage of a Bill considered in a normal Standing

Column 339

I have moved more amendments in Committee that have been found to be defective than I have had hot dinners, but subsequently I have been able to find opportunities on Report to raise exactly the same issues.

For the avoidance of doubt, can you tell us whether the procedures are any different? Does the content of amendment No. 27--whether the wording is the same does not matter--mean that we are precluded from considering such an amendment on Report? It could only be selected by you, Madam Speaker, so it is only you who can give the ruling. Does the fact that the Bill has been considered on the Floor of the House prevent the House from coming to a conclusion on the precise contents of amendment No. 27?

Madam Speaker : The whole situation and the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman are very hypothetical. In order not to leave the House in any doubt, I will make no ruling whatever. I will determine it when these matters are put before me at the appropriate time. 4.34 pm

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : I listened with care to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). If I heard her correctly, she said that she was actively looking for other ways of dealing with the matter than amendment No. 27. I suspect some of us can understand why.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House quoted extensively from pages 404 and 405 of the procedural book, "Erskine May". Unfortunately, he finished at the end of the second paragraph on page 405, whereas to me the most important point is at the beginning of the third paragraph :

"Selection is made by the Chair in such a way as to bring out the salient points of criticism".

Therein for me lies the difficulty.

May I draw the attention of the House to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, hardly as long as the 63,500 words of the treaty, and to something which does not normally get much attention, the explanatory memorandum which says :

"The Bill will have no direct financial effect in the United Kingdom."

I invite the House to reflect on whether that is so. I suspect that it is not true and never has been. Only amendment No. 27 bears on the matter.

My constituents in Stroud will be obliged, through VAT, to pay moneys to the advantage of countries which are presumed to have the benefit of the social chapter. In short, my constituents in Stroud will, through VAT, push money across to Sicily, Sardinia or other areas which are regarded as suffering poverty.

Many people say that there is an opt-out from the social chapter. What we mean is that we are giving the other 11 nations the opportunity to have a social chapter because they believe that it is in their interests. Perhaps the two great lies in the debate are, first, that opt-outs mean very much and, secondly, that if we do not have Maastricht we will not get inward investment. Perhaps the opt-out will be effective but by the time we have seen article 100A, on majority voting, and by the time that we have looked at health and safety legislation, and, most of all, the European Court of Justice, our opt-out may not be as effective as many think. Only amendment No. 27 addresses those points. If it is not called, we will get no opportunity to make our view known on behalf of our constituents.

Column 340

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : I am sympathetic to many of the views which my hon. Friend has expressed in the House in recent weeks. Can he explain why the issue cannot be raised on Report?

Mr. Knapman : May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that there is a movement towards new clauses 74 and 75? No doubt we shall be asked to look at new clauses which have not yet even been framed. The debate will be at a later stage. Therefore, there is little chance of amendment No. 27 being called by Madam Speaker at the appropriate time ; of course, Madam Speaker, that will be a matter for you.

New clause 74 says :

"This Act shall come into force only when the House of Commons has come to a Resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown". At this stage we have no idea what that motion might say. The motion is not to me a form of challenge to authority. I speak as one who has been here for the 21 days of Committee proceedings. It is encouraging that the longer we carry on debating the Maastricht treaty, the more hon. Members are here.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : New clause 74 says that the powers of the legislation shall not take effect until there has been a debate on the social chapter. If the new clause is accepted in Committee, does not that make it difficult for the Chair to accept amendment No. 27 on Report? Is not that the problem?

Mr. Knapman : My hon. Friend is exactly right. That must be so, and it was among the points that I was trying to make.

I promised in my note to you this morning, Madam Speaker, that I would not detain the House for more than one or two minutes. You will know that the whole House holds you in the greatest respect because we know that you are the guardian of Back Benchers' interests. My constituents are being asked, probably for the first time, to have their taxes sent abroad--I still feel that Sicily and Sardinia are abroad--at the very time when our county council is short of money for education. The matter is important and I want an opportunity to vote on it. Unless my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can contradict me, I say that amendment No. 27 is the only one that deals with that matter.

4.40 pm

Next Section

Home Page