Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 512514,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/512514/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 127,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Unfortunately, the Committee has already tabled its Report on their proposed amendments. In fact, my assumption is that when the Committees do table their Reports, they are circulated for the entire membership to read and see what the Committee will be coming up with. Unfortunately, a trend has emerged where Reports by Committees are not read by hon. Members so that, at the stage of the Committee of the whole House, the amendments do not become debate. I have witnessed such a situation. I encourage hon. Members to read through the Reports of the Committee to see the amendments they have proposed. Now we are past that stage. To tell the Committee to begin another sitting is not fair. There is no rule in our Standing Orders that limits a Member to only have 20 or 15 amendments. If the proposed law has 1,000 clauses and the Member feels that they have proposals to amend each clause, except for the convenience of the House, that has happened. If the Committee has already tabled its Report, then would it be fair for us to insist that hon. Gumbo must be heard by the Committee and yet, he is able to prosecute his proposed amendments? I am sure that hon. Gumbo is able to move his amendments; notwithstanding the number of amendments that he has, since the Committee has tabled its Report. Let us just go through the full process of allowing the Committee to move the amendments. Hon. Gumbo should be able to move his amendments in the Committee of the whole House and then the latter will make a decision one way or the other. We cannot start saying that the Committee goes to sit again. Hon. Gumbo, I am sure you are up to the task. I have no doubts in my mind."
}