Procedure of the House

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is no. The motion has been tabled by the Government for the debate to last for up to one hour. Colleagues can make their own assessment of whether they think that is a sufficiency of time for this matter, but I am not in a position to extend the time.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you make sure that the general public out there, who will look on in disbelief, have some understanding of the absolutely ridiculous way in which Parliament has now been forced to act?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, people can attend to our proceedings if they so wish. I imagine that some will and some won’t.

Points of Order

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will offer a response, but if the hon. Lady who chairs the Committee wishes to come in on the back of the point of order, she is at liberty to do so.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important for the House to understand that the Select Committee was simply operating in such a way as to ensure that our report was helpful in terms of the legislation coming forward—the Infrastructure Bill that we shall be dealing with later today. What perhaps needs to happen, following on from your ruling on this, Mr Speaker, is consideration of what rules and guidance there can be in order that those of us on the Liaison Committee can make absolutely sure that we do not, as it were, miss the bus. There is no point in having important recommendations coming forward when legislation is being rushed through in this place, and it is then too late to have the informed debate that this House of Commons absolutely has to have.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Precisely because the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) courteously gave me notice both of his intention to raise the point or order and its thrust, I have, unsurprisingly, a prepared response. The House can make its own assessment of this situation, but I confess that my own reading of it was analogous to that of the hon. Lady. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, but let me just say this for the record. It is certainly unusual for a Select Committee to release information about the conclusions of its report prior to publication, and to do so would normally be considered a discourtesy to the House, though not a contempt given that the report had been formally reported to the House. However, in this case I understand that the Committee considered that it was helpful for the House to have notice of the relevance of its report, which was published this morning, to the amendment, which was required to be tabled last week. Therefore no harm has been done by it. I think the House will be grateful to both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Transport Committee for the work they have done on matters relevant to the Infrastructure Bill, although of course I note in passing, non-evaluatively, that it does not follow that all Members will necessarily agree entirely with their conclusions. We will leave it there for now.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No amendment is required to prove that there is no amendment. That makes me think that the hon. Lady has been reading Heidegger—“the nothing noths”. There is no manuscript amendment, and consideration of this matter should not be clouded by thoughts of a manuscript amendment. I have been given no indication that there will be a manuscript amendment. It would be extraordinary, to put it mildly, for a manuscript amendment to be proposed or put forward for consideration by me or by professional advisers when the debate has already started. Things need to be dealt with in an orderly manner.

[Joan Walley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Amber Rudd]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will take the point of order from the hon. Lady and then the Minister can either respond to that or continue her speech.

[Joan Walley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the House would like some clarification as to whether what we are going to be voting on will be an overall ban. Members on both sides of the House have tabled many amendments seeking to bring that about. When, in an hour’s time, we vote on these amendments, we will not know whether we can be confident that the Government are really doing as they say. I would be grateful if the Minister, if not instantly, then in the next 45 minutes, could tell us what she is actually proposing.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course Members must listen to what the Minister has to say, but, for the avoidance of doubt, Members will be voting on that which is on the amendment paper. I do not mean this in any sense discourteously, but it is not for the Chair to seek to interpret amendments or new clauses, and I would not presume to do so. Each right hon. or hon. Member must make his or her own assessment of the merits or demerits, and implications, of new clauses and amendments and vote accordingly. We are voting only on what is on the amendment paper, not on that which is not on it. I call the Minister.

Points of Order

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to oblige the hon. Lady. I am sorry that it was her first point of order, but I am quite certain it will not be her last. My response to her point of order is twofold. First, my understanding—I do not wish to be pedantic, but I think it is factually correct and an important point—is that the question was not, as she put it, withdrawn, but transferred. Secondly, on how she should proceed, I would say that she is an ingenious Member and will know that there is plenty of scope for tabling questions, seeking Adjournment debates and raising matters during oral questions, and there are also the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, so there are plenty of facilities open to her.

Although the Table Office seeks to advise hon. Members where there is a risk of an oral parliamentary question being transferred, the prediction of the allocation of ministerial responsibility is not an exact science. It is for the Government to decide where responsibility lies for answering a question, and I do not intervene in such decisions. I recognise that they can be the source of frustration or irritation, but they are not matters for the Chair. Furthermore, for the hon. Lady’s benefit and that of the House, I must make the specific point that nothing disorderly has occurred.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure there is a further to that point of order, but the hon. Lady has been in the House 25 years, so we ought to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Joan Walley]

I, too, had an oral question down for answer during Justice Question Time, but was told at the last minute that it had been transferred to the Cabinet Office, because the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is now dealing with it, was unable to answer it as part of the Justice Front-Bench team. Will you have regard to the difficulty of raising issues on behalf of our constituents owing to internal transfers within the Government?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but my earlier statement still applies: it is a matter for the Government. I say that not least because we are in the presence of the esteemed Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—[Interruption.] No, there is no need for him to rise from his seat at this point, though it is always a pleasure to listen to him. Nevertheless, I attach great importance to early decisions on transfer. If a question is to be transferred, it is for the convenience of the Member and the House as a whole that the decision be taken and the Member notified at an early stage. After his 42 years in the House, I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to assent to that uncontroversial proposition.

Point of Order

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that my Bill, the Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill, is item No. 10 on the Order Paper. Given the difficulties faced by Members, who are elected, in being unable to get a sitting date for valid Bills that should be debated by the House, I wonder whether, when you visit the youth parliament in Kidsgrove, you could explain to young people in my constituency the archaic procedures of this House for getting proper legislation through.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome such a challenge.

Petition

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)

- Hansard -

I should like to present a petition—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Order. May I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly so that the hon. Lady is afforded the courtesy that they would want to be extended to them?

Joan Walley

- Hansard -

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker, because this issue matters to me.

I should like to present a petition of more than 1,000 signatures from the residents of Kidsgrove, Staffordshire and others. In the run-up to Christmas, all Members will be aware of the important role of Royal Mail delivery offices, and that they are busier than ever at this time of year.

We are all aware of the value of the work of the postmen and women who deliver our mail, and of the importance of local delivery offices being close at hand. We want to ensure that Royal Mail liaises with local business and with Kidsgrove town council about any changes.

My petition therefore declares:

The Petition of residents of Kidsgrove, Staffordshire and others,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the proposed relocation of the Royal Mail Delivery Office from Kidsgrove to Newcastle-under-Lyme, without consultation with local people and businesses, will result in a deterioration of local services, will be detrimental to local businesses, and cause an increased carbon footprint.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that Royal Mail consults with local partners to improve delivery services in line with the commercial and domestic needs of the Kidsgrove, ST7 area and reviews the proposed relocation accordingly.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000988]

Royal Mail Delivery Office, Kidsgrove, Staffordshire

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly so that the hon. Lady is afforded the courtesy that they would want to be extended to them?

[Joan Walley]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker, because this issue matters to me.

I should like to present a petition of more than 1,000 signatures from the residents of Kidsgrove, Staffordshire and others. In the run-up to Christmas, all Members will be aware of the important role of Royal Mail delivery offices, and that they are busier than ever at this time of year.

We are all aware of the value of the work of the postmen and women who deliver our mail, and of the importance of local delivery offices being close at hand. We want to ensure that Royal Mail liaises with local business and with Kidsgrove town council about any changes.

My petition therefore declares:

The Petition of residents of Kidsgrove, Staffordshire and others,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the proposed relocation of the Royal Mail Delivery Office from Kidsgrove to Newcastle-under-Lyme, without consultation with local people and businesses, will result in a deterioration of local services, will be detrimental to local businesses, and cause an increased carbon footprint.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that Royal Mail consults with local partners to improve delivery services in line with the commercial and domestic needs of the Kidsgrove, ST7 area and reviews the proposed relocation accordingly.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000988]

Prayers

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Friday 21st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to Standing Orders Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14. Standing Order No. 12 states:

“Unless the House otherwise orders, the House shall not sit on any Friday other than those on which private Members’ bills have precedence.”

Standing Order No. 14, on the arrangement and timing of public and private business, states that

“government business shall have precedence at every sitting”

and paragraph (4) states:

“Private Members’ bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session”.

May I suggest, Mr Speaker, on the evidence of the time-wasting that we have seen not just today but regularly on Fridays, that, given that Members of the House come here to bring forward legislation—such as my Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill, which is not mischievous and has not yet had a Second Reading and is unlikely to have one—it is time that this House, through the proper channels and the Procedure Committee, reconsidered how we deal with private Members’ business so that we can make progress and so that those Members of Parliament who are elected to this House have a genuine opportunity to get legislation on to our statute book? That is what the public expect of us.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for advance notice of it. I have considerable sympathy for her and for other Back-Bench Members who have worked hard to bring their Bills to the House for debate. How today’s proceedings unfold is a matter for the House and the use of time and procedure is in the hands of individual Members. The Chair of the Procedure Committee is in the House today and he might welcome a memorandum from the hon. Lady setting out her analysis of the problem and the solutions that she proposes. I hope that is helpful both to the hon. Lady and to the rest of the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Lest others who listen to our proceedings are not aware of it, I can remind them, or inform them for the first time, that the hon. Gentleman is the author of a well-thumbed tome entitled “Commons Knowledge: How to be a Backbencher”. Over the years, he and I have both tabled very large numbers of questions, but I have to say to him, with some relief, that I have never been responsible for the content or quality of the answers under successive Governments.

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, but it is not one, as I think he knows, on which I can rule. What I will say to him is twofold. First, the Leader of the House is sitting on the Treasury Bench and will have heard very clearly the plaintive representation that he has made. Secondly, as an inquiry is currently being conducted, or is shortly to be conducted, into the subject of parliamentary questions and ministerial answers under the auspices of the Procedure Committee, if memory serves me correctly, the hon. Gentleman, with his vast experience and many examples, might wish to submit evidence to that Committee. I think that that would be useful.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Further to the point of order on the Building Schools for the Future programme, Mr Speaker. If it is the case that there have been significant changes to money that was allocated in July, can you make sure that there is information in the Library prior to Wednesday’s debate on the comprehensive spending review?

[Mr Speaker]

Ministers will have heard the request that the hon. Lady has made. I have noted it myself, and it does not seem unreasonable. I cannot continue now the debate and exchanges that have already taken place, but I am grateful to her and to all hon. Members.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Joan Walley and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is important for the House and its opportunity to debate matters of public policy properly that relevant documents be made available in the Vote Office in time for debates. The hon. Gentleman has registered his point with his characteristic force. It is on the record, and those on the Treasury Bench—including appropriate Ministers—will have heard it.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could perhaps encourage the promotion of the report of the Committee on Climate Change by Parliament—because it is a report to Parliament—rather than its being launched elsewhere.

[Mr Speaker]

I fear that that is somewhat outwith the scope of the Chair. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her confidence in my capacities, and her desire to extend my agenda, but I am not sure that I can agree to her request on this occasion.

Members have been waiting patiently and we are grateful to them, but if there are no further points of order, we come now to the presentation of Bills.

Bills Presented

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John McDonnell, supported by Kate Hoey, Tony Lloyd, Mr David Anderson, Michael Connarty, Austin Mitchell, Mr Frank Doran, Kelvin Hopkins, Jim Sheridan, Mr David Crausby, Ian Lavery and John Cryer, presented a Bill to amend section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to extend the circumstances in which, by virtue of that section, industrial action is not to be treated as excluded from the protection of section 219 of that Act.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 4) with explanatory notes (Bill 4-EN).

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Robert Flello, supported by Andrew George, Mr Philip Hollobone, Caroline Lucas, Alun Michael, Zac Goldsmith, Martin Horwood, Hazel Blears, Henry Smith, Mr Michael Meacher and Peter Bottomley, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to improve the sustainability of the production, processing, marketing, manufacturing, distribution and consumption of products derived to any substantial extent from livestock; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 November, and to be printed (Bill 5) with explanatory notes (Bill 5-EN).

Public Services (Social Enterprise And Social Value) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Chris White presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State and local authorities to publish strategies in connection with promoting social enterprise; to enable communities to participate in the formulation and implementation of those strategies; to require that public sector contracts include provisions relating to social outcomes and social value; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 6).

Daylight Saving Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Rebecca Harris, supported by Joan Walley, Mr Tim Yeo, Mr Frank Field, Mr Greg Knight, Caroline Lucas, Stephen Phillips, Mr Adam Holloway, Stephen Pound and Zac Goldsmith, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to conduct a cross-departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits of advancing time by one hour for all, or part of, the year; to require the Secretary of State to take certain action in the light of that analysis; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 7).

Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Greg Knight, supported by Sir Alan Beith, Kevin Brennan, John Hemming, Mr William Cash, Mr Gary Streeter, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Chris Bryant, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Alan Meale, Richard Ottaway and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the distribution of the estates of deceased persons; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January, and to be printed (Bill 8) with explanatory notes (Bill 8-EN).

Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Anna Soubry presented a Bill to prohibit the publication of certain information regarding persons who have been arrested until they have been charged with an offence; to set out the circumstances where such information can be published without committing an offence; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed (Bill 9).

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Harriett Baldwin, supported by Mr David Davis, Tracey Crouch, Bob Stewart, Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey, Damian Hinds, David Tredinnick, Mr Peter Bone, Chris Heaton-Harris, Richard Graham and Mr Charles Walker, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State, when preparing draft legislation for publication, to do so in such a way that the effect of that legislation on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is separately and clearly identified; to require the Secretary of State to issue a statement to the effect that in his or her view the provisions of the draft legislation are in accordance with certain principles relating to territorial extent; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 February, and to be printed (Bill 10).

Gangmasters Licensing (Extension to Construction Industry) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr David Hamilton, supported by Sandra Osborne, Mr Jim Hood, Mr David Anderson, Jim Sheridan, Alun Michael, John Robertson, Jim McGovern, Ian Lavery, Mr Stephen Hepburn and Jack Dromey, presented a Bill to apply the provisions of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to the construction industry; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 11).

Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Joan Walley, supported by Mr Adrian Sanders, Alison McGovern, Martin Caton, Caroline Lucas, Mark Lazarowicz, Peter Bottomley, Mr Mike Hancock and Annette Brooke, presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of a Code regarding the procurement of sustainable food by public bodies; for the review and development of the Code; for the regulatory enforcement of the Code by public bodies; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 November, and to be printed (Bill 12).

Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mrs Sharon Hodgson, supported by Mr Tom Watson, Chris Bryant, Paul Farrelly, Mr Russell Brown, David Wright, Mark Tami, Lyn Brown, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Mary Creagh, Rachel Reeves and Catherine McKinnell, presented a Bill to regulate the selling of tickets for certain sporting and cultural events; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January, and to be printed (Bill 13) with explanatory notes (Bill 13-EN).

Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Adrian Sanders, supported by Sir Menzies Campbell, Martin Caton, Annette Brooke, Peter Bottomley, Stephen Williams, Jonathan Edwards, Dr John Pugh, Mr Tom Watson, Mr John Leech, Paul Flynn and Lorely Burt, presented a Bill to require landlords to provide smoke alarms in rented accommodation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 14).

Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Andrew Bridgen, supported by Heather Wheeler, Nigel Mills, Paul Murphy, Nigel Adams and Mark Pritchard, presented a Bill to require planning authorities to impose a minimum distance between opencast mining developments and residential properties; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 February, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Coinage (Measurement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mark Lancaster, supported by Mr Adam Holloway, Mr Stewart Jackson, Mr Lee Scott, Mr Brian Binley, Mr Tobias Ellwood, Alec Shelbrooke, Julian Sturdy, Iain Stewart, Chris Heaton-Harris, Mr Ben Wallace and Mr Rob Wilson, presented a Bill to make provision about the arrangements for measuring the standard weight of coins.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February, and to be printed (Bill 16) with explanatory notes (Bill 16-EN).

Sports Grounds Safety Authority Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Jonathan Lord presented a Bill to confer further powers on the Football Licensing Authority and to amend its name; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 17) with explanatory notes (Bill 17-EN).

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Thérèse Coffey, supported by Mr Matthew Offord, presented a Bill to implement the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 18) with explanatory notes (Bill 18-EN).

Financial Services (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lorely Burt, supported by Simon Hughes, Mr Lee Scott, Richard Burden, Stephen Williams, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mr George Mudie, Mr Mike Hancock, Heather Wheeler, Meg Munn, Mr Andrew Love and Jack Dromey, presented a Bill to ensure that ancillary pricing terms in personal financial services contracts can be assessed for fairness; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 November, and to be printed (Bill 19).

Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Philip Hollobone presented a Bill to regulate the wearing of certain face coverings; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 20).

Protection of Local Services (Planning) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Nigel Adams, supported by Jonathan Reynolds, Greg Mulholland, Stuart Andrew, Gordon Henderson, Andrew Percy, Mike Weatherley, Andrew Stephenson, Stephen McPartland, Priti Patel, Philip Davies and Henry Smith, presented a Bill to enable local planning authorities to require planning permission prior to the demolition or change of use of premises or land used or formerly used to provide a local service; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Paul Beresford presented a Bill to amend section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to include serious harm to a child or vulnerable adult; to make consequential amendments to the Act; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January, and to be printed (Bill 22) with explanatory notes (Bill 22-EN).

Secured Lending Reform Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

George Eustice presented a Bill to make provision regarding the rights of secured debtors; to reform the rights of certain creditors to enforce their security; to make other provision regarding secured lending; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 23).