13,504

1

Parliamentarian.

2

Yesterday and today we have on three different

3

occasions I think suspended interring rules in order to

4

re-consider items adopted on second reading, and then have

5

adopted amendments.

6

The question has been asked, why was it not

7

necessary to read the Committee Recommendation again on

8

second reading.

9

If you will recall when the Chair first started

10

to put the question to you the first time it arose, I did

11

so in a rather involved manner, by suggesting a suspension

12

of eules to re-consider the vote by which the Committee

13

Recommendation was adopted on second reading in order to

14

re-consider the vote by which an amendment was adopted or

15

rejected.

16

Had that procedure been followed, it would have

17

been necessary to go back twice and then forward twice

18

and have a second reading again.

19

The Parliamentarian suggested instead the

20

device which we have used, to suspend the interferring

21

rules, to permit consideration, after second reading, of