Section 22 — Orders and regulations

Local Governance (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:00 pm on 23rd June 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 4:00 pm, 23rd June 2004

Group 7 is on subordinate legislation provisions. Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 26, 21, 22, 14 to 17, 23, 23A and 23B. I remind members that amendments 26, 23A and 23B are manuscript amendments that were lodged today. The text can be found in the supplement to the marshalled list of amendments, which has been placed on the desks in the chamber.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Executive amendments 13 to 17 are straightforward technical amendments. The bill as introduced makes provision for the establishment of the Scottish local authorities remuneration committee, which will make recommendations about how councillors should be remunerated. Once the committee reports and details of the new system of remuneration are established, it will be necessary to put in place legislation to give effect to the new arrangements. That will involve the use of the regulation-making power under section 17(1). Section 22 provides that any such regulation-making power includes the power to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential, transitory or saving provision as ministers think necessary. The bill also contains a separate stand-alone power to make ancillary provision.

We have considered how to make the consequential provisions that will be required following the introduction of a new system of allowances and remuneration for councillors. As we do not know at this stage what the remuneration committee will recommend—and therefore what provision will be required—we cannot include an appropriate provision in the bill. However, the extent of the regulation-making power under section 17(1) is limited by section 22, which at present may not allow the power to be used to modify an enactment. We consider that the introduction of a new system of remuneration may require modification of primary legislation, which is why we propose an amendment to section 22 to clarify the matter. As a safeguard, where an order under section 21 or regulations under section 17(1) contain provisions that add to, replace or omit any part of the text of an act, the affirmative procedure will apply. Amendments 13 to 17 give effect to the policy that was agreed at stage 1. They will ensure that we can amend or repeal existing legislation on councillors' allowances if it is incompatible with the recommendations of the remuneration committee.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee lodged amendments 21 to 23 because of concerns that one of the order-making powers in the bill could be used to modify the bill itself, once enacted. We have closely examined that point. Section 9(1) provides that ministers must make an order relating to the conduct of the election and that the order must cover certain key essentials of an STV system. Although such an order could be used to amend an existing act, section 22(3) provides that any such order would be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee is concerned that an order under section 9(1) could be used to amend the bill once enacted and might even be used to abolish STV. Amendments 21 and 22—and amendment 26, in the name of Alasdair Morgan—are intended to prevent such an order from amending the bill, once enacted.

I might be able to reassure the committee by explaining that, in our view, the section 9(1) power could not be used in that way. Our legal advice is very clear that subordinate legislation powers must be construed within the realms of the parent legislation and cannot be used to subvert the act in which they appear. As a result, it is simply not possible for section 9(1) to be used to abolish STV. Moreover, we must not forget the additional safeguard of parliamentary scrutiny, which offers us further reassurance that any attempt to abuse the section 9(1) power would be unsuccessful. For those reasons, we believe that amendments 21 to 23 are unnecessary, as strong safeguards already exist.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent

Will the minister assure us that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate and vote on any order that relates to the determination of the quota and the method of transfer of votes?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Mr Canavan raises a different matter that was dealt with earlier this afternoon. However, I will certainly come back to him on that point.

We are concerned about the danger that amending the bill to include a restriction of the sort proposed by the Subordinate Legislation Committee could call into question the proper interpretation of all the other pieces of legislation in which similar order-making powers appear without a similar restriction. Moreover, there is a danger that, in consequence, people might argue that such powers are wider than the Parliament actually intended. Although I am sure that that is not the committee's intention, it would be one of the consequences of its amendments.

Amendment 23 seeks to provide for a super-affirmative procedure to be adopted for orders made under section 9(1), and amendments 23A and 23B, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, seek to make adjustments to that procedure. Although I understand that additional preliminary requirements have been adopted for some acts, they reflect their particular subject matter. I should also point out that the super-affirmative procedure is not a generally recognised one.

The rules governing the conduct of council elections are at present subject to annulment. As the affirmative procedure that we have adopted for orders under section 9(1) already offers Parliament greater scrutiny, we are not convinced that further enhancement of the affirmative procedure is necessary. As a result, I ask Sylvia Jackson not to move amendments 21 to 23 and Alasdair Morgan not to move amendments 23A, 23B and 26.

I move amendment 13.

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour

As the minister has pointed out, the Subordinate Legislation Committee was concerned about the delegated power in section 9, which is why we lodged amendments 21 to 23. Indeed, our full reasons for doing so are contained in our report.

I am grateful to the minister for his remarks and particularly for his important clarification about the scope of subordinate legislation to amend the provisions in acts. I believe that that clarification not only reassures the committee about its concerns over the bill's subordinate legislation provisions but serves to clear up the position with respect to all legislation, unless otherwise specified. However, it must be a matter of regret to the committee that the Executive could not have supplied that clarification when Stewart Maxwell initially raised the question that led to our on-going deliberation.

That said, the reassurance that the committee sought has now been put on the record for the chamber. It is very important that subordinate legislation powers are construed within the realms of parent legislation and, in this case, cannot be used to subvert section 1 and 2.

With that reassurance, as convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I will not move amendments 21 to 23. However, I will say that the committee's future review of subordinate legislation will examine the super-affirmative procedure in much more detail.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

Clearly, I started from the same point as the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee—of which I am a member—with my concern that the provisions in section 22 could be used to amend the bill, once enacted. We were concerned not that the current Executive or any Executive that we could foresee for the immediate future would use the powers in that way, but that an ill-disposed Executive could use them to abolish the PR system by adjusting the numbers involved—particularly those referred to in sections 1 and 2—so much as to revert to a first-past-the-post system.

The question is whether the order-making powers in section 22 can be used to alter sections 1 and 2 of the bill once enacted. It is all very well for the minister to say that he has legal advice that they could not, but others have received legal advice that clashes with his. Moreover, it is not good enough for the minister to say that it is not his intention to use those powers to amend sections 1 and 2. The fact that that is not his intention or that of the Government does not mean that a future Government could not use the section 22 powers in that way.

I am aware of the Pepper v Hart ruling under which ministers' intentions can be used in a court case at a subsequent date to argue against statutory instruments that are laid by a Government. However, that would be too late, because we would have to go to court to argue against legislation that a Government was putting through Parliament. That is a dubious procedure at best; it is by no means certain and therefore gives no guarantee that section 22 would not be used to amend sections 1 and 2. I therefore wonder why the Government is resisting amendment 26, which is simply a generic, for-the-avoidance-of-doubt type of amendment. It does not do any damage to the Executive's provision or frustrate the Executive's will in any way, but guarantees the will of the Parliament that statutory instruments that are laid under the bill, once enacted, cannot be used to amend it. I do not see what is wrong with amendment 26. I understand the argument against amendment 21—although I do not necessarily agree with it—which is that the amendment could bring into doubt other acts that do not have such a provision. However, the wording of amendment 26 is used in other acts that the Government has introduced.

I therefore urge the minister to re-examine his thoughts on the issue and accept the Subordinate Legislation Committee's concern on the matter, which his assurances do not fully address. They may address the concern for the current Executive, but he cannot bind future Executives.

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

As has already been pointed out, the Subordinate Legislation Committee was concerned by the answers that Executive civil servants gave to various questions that I and other members of the committee asked them. I will quote briefly from those answers for the minister's benefit. When I asked about whether section 9 could be used to amend sections 1 and 2, the answer was:

"Theoretically, an order made under section 9(2) can modify an enactment, so it would be possible".—[Official Report, Subordinate Legislation Committee, 15 June 2004; c 511.]

Our legal advice says that that is the case.

As Alasdair Morgan has said, amendment 26 does not in any way detract from the Executive's policy, attack its position or undermine what it is trying to do. In essence, amendment 26 tries to close the door to ensure that any future Executive that is opposed to the bill and to STV could not use a statutory instrument to get rid of STV, but would have to introduce primary legislation and take it through the Parliament using the full procedure. We should close that door by supporting amendment 26.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

We are perhaps concerned about something that does not really exist. I would have thought that it is possible to make orders and amend enactments under any section only as far is required for that section. Therefore, it would be possible to amend an act using the powers in subsections (1) and (2) of section 9 only to introduce the things that are provided for in those subsections. The problem that is being raised is not genuine.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat 4:15 pm, 23rd June 2004

In response to the points raised by Mr Morgan and Mr Maxwell, I recognise that, as Mr Maxwell said, civil servants gave evidence that day. However, I point out that they said they would provide further information later, which they did. On 15 June, the Executive sent a letter that I am sure that Mr Maxwell and Mr Morgan have read. For the sake of brevity, I shall quote only one sentence from it. The letter says:

"I can now confirm our view that the power in Section 9(1) could not be used to amend the primary legislation in which the power appears, unless an express provision to that effect had been included."

It is important to reflect on that statement and on the words spoken by the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee a moment ago.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 8

For: Adam, Brian, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Canavan, Dennis, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 41, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 26 disagreed to.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 9

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Canavan, Dennis, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 21 disagreed to.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Amendments 14 to 17 moved—[Tavish Scott].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendments 14 to 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 10

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: McNeil, Mr Duncan
Abstentions: Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Fox, Colin, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Sheridan, Tommy

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 99, Against 1, Abstentions 10.

Amendments 14 to 17 agreed to.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 23A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 11

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23A disagreed to.

[Amendment 23B not moved.]

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Division number 12

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Canavan, Dennis, Cunningham, Roseanna, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Ingram, Mr Adam, Johnstone, Alex, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morgan, Alasdair, Mundell, David, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sheridan, Tommy, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 disagreed to.