Thanks to Mr. Goldring for his intervention.
You're aware, I guess through our friends at the table here, that by way of constraining people to only being allowed to bring amendments here, if you bring amendments here it means you can't bring them to the House, right? That's the way our system works.
It's pretty obvious what's happening here. If you're not able as an independent member to be at a committee or be heard, or are constrained as to your intervention, it's pretty obvious your rights are being constricted. In the House you have more opportunity to actually speak, and you're not as constrained.
I would go back to the point, Peter, that this is not about and it shouldn't be about the rights of parties but the rights of members by way of, as you pointed out, this vague language of “to make brief representations”, but also noting that once you've brought them forward to committee, you're no longer able to bring them to the House.
That's understood, right? Do we all understand what this is about?
Okay. As long as we all understand, then there are no surprises. This is really limiting the ability of independent members to bring amendments to the House. I think that needs to be underlined.
I also would argue that Mr. Goldring brings a good point, that when you have language that says “an opportunity to make brief representations”, it's very clear we're trying to constrain here the opportunity for independent members to present their case or to participate.