Member

As for Amendment 3, putting “must” for “may” in subsection (5), it really makes no difference: if the Minister lays the matter before the House, the House has to consider it. Whether it is “may” or “must” really does not matter, but what does matter in subsection (5), and the purpose of it, is to make it quite clear that there would be no ping-pong procedure following from it; that there is only one possibility, one opportunity to question the instrument that has been laid by the Minister, and that once that opportunity has been exhausted and the matter comes back here, amended or unamended, the procedure cannot be gone into once more. That is the whole purpose of subsection (5). As I say, I am perfectly relaxed about whether it is “may” or “must”: if the matter is put before the House, it is going to be heard in any event.