Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill

So there’s an interrupted debate on the second reading of the second reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill.

Anyone—oh, we’ve got a call over there?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we can swap them around. The Labour member hadn’t called, so we’ll take you—oh, now they’re both sitting. Cameron Brewer, we’ll let you go first and then we’ll take Helen White following that. There we go.

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, thank you so much, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be standing in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. I want to first acknowledge our illustrious colleague Stuart Smith. We were told not so long ago that Stuart’s been pushing this along since 2015, and so, as the Mainland Cheese ad once famously declared, “Good things take time.” So Stuart comes to this piece of legislation with a lot of industry and professional knowledge and some minimal social experience as well.

So, as a committee, we in the Justice Committee worked judiciously through this piece of legislation to make it as workable to the industry and to the communities and to the public as best we could. Just as the previous member on the previous bill said, “Let’s keep our eye on the prize.”, I think, James Meager, that we need to keep our eye on the prize here. Some other members were interested in broadening the scope of who this legislation could apply to. Could it apply to gin distilleries? Could it apply to craft beer? Frankly, as Greg O’Connor said in the last bill, let’s keep it in the spirit of a member’s bill and let’s keep our eye on the prize.

James Meager: Good idea for another bill, though.

CAMERON BREWER: That’s right; there are always opportunities for other bills, but we here certainly thought that this was being restricted to the wine industry and the very successful wine sector, with $2 billion - plus of exports every year and a big part of the “New Zealand Inc.” brand. We think that this is another natural progression in the wine industry’s growth, not just commercially but in sophistication and its marketability and sound and sensible access.

We also note that there are very few industries and parts of the commercial world that are as heavily regulated as those pertaining to alcohol. So, while this amendment bill allows cellar doors to be able to charge for tastings, we are heavily protected as a public and as politicians by sale and supply legislation which is rigorously enforced and conscientiously monitored in and around those that might be off- or on-licences or both.

Now, the committee heard that this was referred by the 53rd Parliament. We know it’s had a long gestation. The committee called for submissions to the bill and received 72 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard a number of those in person and on video link from all walks of life—some in the industry; others not. We got advice on the bill across many of our officials within the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Clerk, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. So I just wanted to start with an acknowledgment to our chair, James Meager, who shepherded us through this, and the many members on the committee, including my colleagues here—Rima Nakhle, Paulo Garcia, Todd Stephenson—and the very hard-working and diligent Jamie Arbuckle, who also knows the sauvignon capital of the world that is Marlborough pretty well, given that that is his home patch.

Of course, this piece of legislation, it pertains to all of the country. Whether it’s the chardonnay cellar doors in the Gisborne Tairāwhiti area or whether it’s the pinot noirs in Central Otago, this amendment applies to all of those that are running cellar door operations. It doesn’t make it compulsory, but it gives those that are running small—often small—cellar doors, the ability to charge and to claim many of those costs back.

Now, there has been concern, and there may be concern raised tonight, that the definition is too broad and that some with an eye to business might take the definitions of this—even though it’s written in as not the intent—to take it away from the environment of the cellar door and set up shop in Oxford Terrace in Christchurch or Courtenay Place in Wellington or Broadway in Newmarket, and sell—can you picture this, Mr Speaker—and try and make money off selling 35 millilitres, because that’s the max—just think of that cough medicine that you have in the morning—35 millilitres, 7 teaspoons—of profiteering from that by taking the mickey out of this legislation and setting up shop and trying to make a dollar while paying top rates and top commercial leases on Oxford Terrace by selling 35-millilitre pours. We have dubbed that “Webb’s Wine Bar”—“Webb’s Wine Bar”. So if our friend and Opposition member Duncan Webb suggests—

Hon Scott Simpson: The Hon Dr.

CAMERON BREWER: —the Hon Dr Webb suggests that some, like Leo Molloy or whoever, might set up shop and work around this legislation. Well, we have looked at this closely, we have examined this—

Ryan Hamilton: Forensic.

CAMERON BREWER: —we have been forensic, Ryan Hamilton, with this and that would make no commercial sense and that is not going to happen. The Leo Molloys of this world are not going to get into the wine business so they can sell 35-millilitre pours. This is for those operators that have been forced to—because of the legislative and regulatory restrictions, they haven’t been able to sell wine but they have to give it away.

So the irony is this is adding regulation and adding public safety where we didn’t have it. So for the wine industry, they are happy with where we landed. They are happy with the size of samples being no more than 35 millilitres. They are happy with the provision of water being put there as part of host responsibility—and, again, if we status quo, it doesn’t put any of these provisions on: on size of pour, water availability, and the provision of snack food.

Now, we had a look at this across the aisle. We worked because we didn’t want this to be an arduous requirement that would mean that you’d basically have to set up a—

Mike Butterick: A commercial kitchen.

CAMERON BREWER: —commercial kitchen and cook hot meals—Mike Butterick, hot meals—and provide a substantial meal that most people going in and having a wine taste probably don’t want. So we have landed in a place around snack food where the difference is there but it’s not over-cumbersome that it forces cellar doors just to say, “Look, it’s getting too hard.”

So we think we have struck a balance here in enabling our fabulous wineries in and around the Wairarapa, in and around Gisborne, Central Otago, Martinborough, Marlborough—

Hon Member: Mid-Canterbury.

CAMERON BREWER: —mid-Canterbury, and even in the north-west of Auckland to actually be able to recover some of their costs, keep their doors open, and to continue with that organic experience. We think, through many years of forensic work and looking at this legislation that Mr Stuart has done and the select committee has also done in the recent weeks and months, that we’ve arrived at a very good place where it’s workable, the industry is happy, the public can be happy, and the Parliament should be very proud.

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’d like to take a call on this bill just to indicate to Stuart Smith—and congratulations to Stuart for having his bill pulled—that I am going to support this bill. This is a conscience vote in the Labour Party. I’m going to support it because I don’t think regulation in an area like this necessarily does any good, but I also want to respect the view that, in fact, many of the people across this House will have that this is not necessarily what we should be spending our time on in Parliament. I am concerned that we are in a society where we have real, serious issues with drugs and alcohol, and I am not sure that I’ve got all the answers to that, but I’m just not sure that stopping things like the sale of samples in this way would do any good at all.

So I will be voting for the bill because of that, but I want to use my time in this House to talk about the issue of how we might tackle a problem associated with alcohol, because alcohol is probably our most serious harmful drug in this country, and there are some other contenders. But it is a very serious drug. It’s carcinogenic, and it is actually very romantically imagined in this particular setting that we’ve got today of the beautiful vineyards that we have and the beautiful ingenuity of our wineries. That all adds to its romance, but the reality for most people with alcohol addiction is something so different from that, and it affects so many of our families and it hurts them so badly.

I recently went to see an operation called AF Drinks, and it’s a really interesting operation that has started up in Auckland. It’s a profit-making company and I was interested in them because they have portfolios in small business and manufacturing, and I wanted to see what they were doing and how they were doing it. I was told by the woman running it that she had done it because when she’d stopped drinking in, I think, a lockdown, she’d been asked by people what was wrong. She’d been asked whether perhaps she was pregnant. There was no tolerance in our society for a decision not to drink, and I could relate to that. I think it’s probably a really common experience. It’s so ingrained in our culture, and in each class, in a way, that it means that to not drink is seen as unusual and something of a social disadvantage.

So she invented a whole lot of drinks where what they are doing, in a very sensible way, is not building from alcohol, but building layers of flavour up so that you end up with something that’s complex like an alcoholic drink in its flavour and it gives people the same opportunity socially to sip. In that situation, people who are taking that alternative are doing themselves absolutely no harm whatsoever, and that business is skyrocketing. But I was told by that manufacturer about several parts of our law which could change so that they could put that product on the shelf more efficiently.

We have things in our law that are getting in the way of a manufacturer of a product that will actually help our population kick a really dangerous habit, and we have not taken the time to address that issue in this Parliament. So what I would ask is that this Parliament, when it puts in yet another very narrow bill that looks at one area which might suit a particular group in its constituency, thinks wider—think wider next time there’s a member’s bill and put in one that will help this problem. Even if you don’t agree with temperance and you’re not from the same camp that perhaps some of our colleagues are about banning these things, let’s think wider about this issue and get it right, because this is actually an issue that should absolutely rise above politics, and what I would say is that at every doorstep, I found that that was the call I heard. It is time for us to rise above politics about issues like this—absolutely rise above it—and that’s my challenge here, which is that on an issue like this we should be able to do it.

So I commend Stuart Smith for bringing this bill, but I ask others to think—and maybe Stuart Smith next time—to balance this out and put in a bill which helps promote things that are an alternative to alcohol. Thank you.

The next call is a split call between Labour and the National Party.

I rise to speak on this bill, the cellar door bill, and I rise to speak against it, and I’ll tell you why. I’m speaking against it because I think it’s an inaccurate bill, and I think it’s inaccurate because I think that the word “cellar” should be spelt with an “s”, not a “c”, in the context of this bill—

Hon Matt Doocey: He’s not selling doors.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —perhaps you should—because there is no distinction here. There is absolutely no distinction. There’s no need to be a cellar with a “c”, because all you are being through this bill is a seller with an “s”. There’s no geographical proximity to the origin. The definition of a cellar door with a “c” is that manufacturers and producers offer alcohol for sale from their premises. The clue is there: “manufacturers and producers”. That’s why there’s the “c” in cellar, not simply the “s”, not simply someone who sells alcohol.

This bill does not address that sufficiently, and there’s been much talk from the other side of the House about the size of the glass, but there hasn’t been much talk about the number of glasses. So does the bill explicitly prevent an operator, a seller with an “s”, putting a bottle on the table, setting out some 35 millilitre glasses and advising people that they can taste the wine? It doesn’t sound much like a cellar door experience to me.

So, because of those reasons and because I don’t think that we should take it as lightly as some other members of the House are this evening, I don’t think we should take our responsibility lightly around minimising alcohol harm and taking very seriously anything we do to roll back legislation that is put there to protect communities and to manage the responsible consumption of alcohol—I think we need to be far more cautious, and we need to have much better legislation than this before we move forward with it. So that’s why I’m voting no, why I’m voting against cellar with a “c” when it should be seller with an “s”.

The wine industry is, in export, over $2 billion of earnings to our New Zealand economy. In the local market, it is in excess of $1 billion already. It’s all about the experience. What this—what Mr—what our author—

Hon Members: Saint Stuart!

PAULO GARCIA: —MP Stuart Smith. Ha, ha!—

Hon Member: The honourable member for Kaikōura.

PAULO GARCIA: —yes, the honourable member from Kaikōura has brought to us is the opportunity to view the wine industry with a better understanding of the innovation and how it operates and why it is at the level that it is as a large driver of income for the country. Not only that, the experience of the cellar door is already a large tourism pull. What the bill seeks to be able to address is to make it easier for cellar door operators to get through what used to be quite a hurdle of red tape in terms of licensing their cellar door and their cellar restaurants.

So, essentially, because of this bill, what will happen is that cellar door operators can offer wine tasting at their cellar door and charge a price for the samples that they are providing. Again, it’s all about the experience. It’s a big, big piece of the puzzle that New Zealand is, and it is an attraction to overseas nationals. I myself have brought family and friends and visitors and clients through wine-tasting tours to experience the cellar door. It is indeed uniquely an amazing experience. It extends a part of what New Zealand is to a visitor or someone who has not experienced a wine tour going through, say, for example, in Marlborough, where the wineries are so close together.

Catherine Wedd: And Hawke’s Bay

PAULO GARCIA: And Hawke’s Bay of course, and Wairarapa as well, and Gisborne. So the experience of going from cellar door to cellar door will be facilitated. What that does is open up more awareness about the products of the wine that is offered by these wineries. It opens up the opportunity for people to be able to taste and choose with greater ease the types of wines that they would like to purchase. So we’re all very intent on facilitating an increased revenue in this industry and allowing for cellar door and the wineries that operate them to be able to expand their market and attract more people who come through and taste their wines.

It has been mentioned that the pour is important—it’s 35 millilitres. It is important because it offers a taste, with the object of possibly offering many different products to people. I know that the people that I’ve brought through wine-tasting tours have been appreciative of the fact that they could go through tasting before they actually purchased the bottles that they enjoyed the most—the products that they enjoyed the most.

It is a worthwhile bill. The honourable member from Kaikōura has done well, and he knows the industry well, and we commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a real privilege to rise on behalf of my colleague Stuart Smith and speak on his bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. Look, what a great guy “Stewie” Smith is. What’s the point of coming to Parliament if you don’t come here to work hard on behalf of your electorate?

There will be no surprise that “Stewie” Smith has won his seat in four general elections now, because the people he knows, the people that he represents know that when he comes to Wellington, he brings their voice to this Parliament and he makes a difference. I’ve got no doubt that when Stuart Smith goes back to the electorate this Friday, there will be a public holiday in Marlborough because of this bill. The shops will close, he will be feted as he will be carried down the main road of Blenheim. He’ll be given the key for every cellar door in the district. There’s no surprise why Mr Smith is actually a fellow of the wine industry in New Zealand. That’s because Mr Smith was actually the chair of the board of New Zealand Wine Growers for over six years before he came into politics, and he was responsible for taking New Zealand wine sales offshore to over the $1 billion export mark.

That’s why Mr Smith is very smart with this bill today, because he knows New Zealand’s in a very difficult situation. Because of the economic vandalism of the last Government, we saw public expenditure go up by 80 percent. The economy is in a recession, we have a budget deficit of over $9.4 billion, and we know we’re going to be in deficit until 2027. Because of people like Willie Jackson, our grandkids are going to inherit debt that has ballooned over $100 billion. As we know on this side of the House, the way you grow the economy, New Zealand is a small nation at the bottom of the world, we need to sell with other countries, we need to trade with the rest of the world. The reason I bring that point up is because, on this side of the House, we know tourism and hospitality is our second-biggest export earner in this country—tourism is the second-biggest export earner in this country. So whatever we can do to support tourism and hospitality in this country is going to bring people jobs; it’s going to bring them better incomes.

I’ve got no doubt when those cruise ships dock at the port not far from here, they’ll be jumping straight on the bus to Martinborough and spending their day up there. Thanks to Stuart Smith, those vineyards now will have a more sustainable business model and they’ll be able to sell more of their products to those high-yielding tourists that this coalition Government will bring in. We also know, in a place like Timaru, they’re bringing cruise ships in as well—I’m just not sure about the vineyards, but I’m sure Mr Meager can correct me on this as well.

So that’s what we know on this side of the House: it is about growing the economy in a bill like this, a very significant bill—I must say, though, when I think back on members’ bills that I have had that were actually voted down in this House, it’s quite disappointing. The prohibition of synthetic urine bill that I brought to this House that was voted down—a very important bill that I wasn’t taking the piss on, but I wasn’t able to get it through. But “Stewie” Smith brings this bill to the House that’s, hopefully, going to be passed tonight.

I stand here tonight as also the Minister for hospitality—New Zealand’s first Minister for hospitality. When I first got that job, I rang up my mum and said, “All that time you gave me gyp for spending my life as a younger person in the vineyards of Marlborough or the pubs in Blenheim and said it wouldn’t get me anywhere—look where it’s got me today: New Zealand’s first Minister for hospitality.”

What I want to do in New Zealand is bring hospitality and tourism together. What about hospitality tourism? Hospitality tourism where international and domestic visitors go around different regions for the providence, the wine, the food. That’s what this bill will support: the ability for those vineyards to have a more sustainable business model. They’ll be able to attract more domestic and international visitors to the region.

Let’s not forget when we talk of a sector like tourism and hospitality, that’s a sector where people can go to the smaller regions of New Zealand, the smaller rural towns—only places Labour MPs have seen on a map—they’re the places that we represent on the side of the House, because we represent hard-working New Zealanders on the side of the House. That’s why it’s important that we want domestic and international visitors to go into the smaller towns. We want them to go into the vineyards and spend their hard-earned dollars on these samples, to employ locals—maybe stay the night, maybe end up working behind the bar, but that’s the beauty of hospitality and tourism.

So we want to share the love of hospitality and tourism so regional and rural New Zealand can enjoy the economic opportunities that the metropolitan cities will have. What’s really exciting, I was down at the biggest tourism conference in New Zealand, which kicked off tonight, Trenz, down at the Michael Fowler Centre. It was great to see the Prime Minister there launching that event, and I think we should pat every hospitality and every tourist operator on the back, and thank them for everything they’ve done. They had a hell of a time during COVID. The tap was turned off, but now they’ve reclaimed their mantle as the second-biggest export earner to New Zealand—in a time of economic recession because of the vandalism of this last Government.

That’s why we need bills like this to grow the value of tourism and hospitality. On this side of the House, we know that we don’t deserve a paycheque in a place called New Zealand just because we are New Zealand; we need to get out there and fight hard. We need to trade with other countries. With hospitality and tourism being our second-biggest export earner, we need to make sure we support that.

Then the final point I’d make is that on this side of the House—[Member drinks from glass] Tell you what: I’ll just make clear that’s a water; I haven’t been brought any of “Stewie’s” sauvignon blanc from Marlborough. But that might happen after the House rises tonight in toast to this fantastic bill. But my final point is that, on the side of the House, we know business is about private capital. Private capital has options: private capital can go overseas; it can invest in other areas. Our tourism and hospitality owners, they’re the ones that lie awake every night thinking about how they’re going to pay for their staff. On this side of the House, we know that businesses employ people—unlike that side, who think Government employs people. But we know that businesses employ people. If we can give some of these businesses a sustainable business model where they’ll go on and employ more people in their communities—that’s our families, that’s our friends, that’s our neighbours that they will go on and employ.

That’s why we need to make sure we give these business operators certainty and confidence, and that’s what they have in this coalition Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I appreciate the enthusiasm. It’s like the cellar doors are open already.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s my absolute pleasure—[Member coughs] It’s my absolute pleasure to stand here as the final speaker for this evening with my husky throat voice. But, anyway, after the Hon Matt Doocey, I mean, what can we add?

Katie Nimon: A bit of red wine might help.

RIMA NAKHLE: Kate Nimon is such a great local MP, encouraging red wine from her area, Hawke’s Bay! Not “the Hawke’s Bay”, but “Hawke’s Bay”. That’s right.

I stand in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. The principal Act is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. In essence, in a nutshell, what does this amendment seek to do? It allows cellar door wineries to charge people for tasting their wine, for tasting 35 millilitres of their wine at a time. That’s part of what’s going to be added in the bill as well—that a sample size is 35 millilitres. What this will also do is these cellar doors that have a dining component can hold both an on-licence and off-licence simultaneously. Also, in a nutshell, this bill seeks to define intentionally and more clearly what a “winery” is and what a “winery cellar door” is.

Now, I’d like to canvass why we support these changes. Now, we’ve heard a number of reasons, but I’m going to share with the House my perspective. I think a major part of why we support these changes is we want to cut red tape. Now, I know that we hear in the House about our values a lot, and in the National Party, one of our values is limited government. Limited government is a core National Party value. It’s about stripping back unnecessary regulation as much as possible so businesses can just do what they love doing, work the mahi they enjoy to do. And, of course, we want to ensure this happens while still maintaining that standards are met. So we support initiatives and implementations like this in the amendment bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill, that make it easier for hard-working businesses, hard-working Kiwis to operate and, indeed, grow our economy.

As we heard so valiantly by the Hon Matt Doocey, we do need to grow our economy. It’s a serious situation that we’re in, and any way we can help facilitate that—for example, here with this amendment bill—we will be growing the economy. By allowing flexibility with licensing, where cellar door wineries can hold both an on-licence and an off-licence under the same legal entity, this bill will reduce unnecessary costs on the businesses, therefore, once again, cutting red tape and pulling back regulations. We heard about how beneficial this would be by a number of submitters that submitted on this bill, which, if I have the chance—because I only have 6½ minutes left—I’ll read some quotes later.

Stuart Smith: It’s a great speech so far.

RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, wow, thank you. Another reason why we support this bill is that it promotes responsible wine consumption. I hear the concerns by some people across the House; I really do. But I was surprised that the concerns were so strong when, in fact, this amendment bill, as I said, promotes responsible alcohol consumption, and it does this, as I mentioned earlier, by stipulating the sample size. The sample size will be no more than 35 millilitres of wine. Also, what it means is that by charging for these samples of wine, we’re also giving that message to the public that “Hey, we encourage responsible drinking.” So these two points indicate the Government’s commitment to responsible alcohol consumption. These changes, we truly believe, will enhance local businesses, communities, and New Zealand’s tourism. As we’ve mentioned, areas like the Marlborough region produce over 80 percent of New Zealand’s wine, and, over there, tourism accounts for 6 percent of the gross domestic product.

So imagine, Mr Speaker—and I encourage my colleagues in the House to imagine as well—how helpful these amendments will be for the cellar doors that create so many opportunities for locals and Kiwis all over the motu.

Here I’d like to just mention, if I may, I’m sure many in the House know by now that my whakapapa is Lebanese, and I’d like to mention what the Lebanese in New Zealand have contributed to the wine industry in New Zealand and acknowledge it, if I may, with your allowance, Mr Speaker. The Lebanese community established the second winery in New Zealand. That was Corban wine, yes. Someone earlier was talking about no wines in Auckland, well, Corban wines—West Auckland. I’m not a Westie, but we have Westies in the House. The word Corban is the Arabic word “qurbān”, which means “Eucharist”. So the Corban family, they established the second winery in New Zealand, and I’m proud of the fact that Lebanese have contributed to this extremely important commodity for New Zealand.

I’d also like to mention, Mr Speaker, if I may, there’s a gentleman by the name of Terry Dunleavy. Terry Dunleavy—many of the National Party folk would know him. He was a staunch National Party supporter and he was a lovely and fair guy. He passed away in March 2022. But, as Tom would know, Terry Dunleavy made a massive contribution not only to our National Party remits but did you know—did you know, James Meager?—that Mr Dunleavy was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire for his services to the wine industry. He was also the founding editor of the New Zealand Winegrower Magazine, amongst many others. May his soul rest in peace and may we remember him.

Hon Member: Aw, very nice.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes. Absolutely, very nice. Another point I’d like to mention, if I may, is there was some kōrero in the Justice Committee about whether we can expand the bill to distilleries like gin distilleries, whiskey makers, craft beer brewers. I thought it’s important to bring attention to this kōrero that we had.

The majority of the committee decided to stick to the intention of the bill, with our wonderful member here the honourable Stuart Smith, member for Kaikōura, saying that we stick to it being about wine. But there’s another reason why I personally felt the need to stick to it just being about wine, and this is because, with those other industries, we don’t have the definitions for, for example, “craft beer” that we do for “wine”, and this was found even when we were speaking. We were hearing a submission by the New Zealand Craft Brewers—please forgive me; I’ve forgotten the name exactly right now. I specifically asked him: “Is there a definition for ‘craft beer’?”, and he said, “No.” And I think in the absence of established definitions for these other alcohols—for example, craft beer, gin, etc.—and what component of alcohol is acceptable, what would make a sample at this stage? And we said this in our report—the majority of the committee said this—that, at this stage, we just want to stick to just wine. But you never know what can happen in the future. I’m personally open in the future. Do we extend this bill for other craft breweries and distilleries as well?

This bill will make it easier for our wineries, our family owned cellar door wineries to operate and to also get back a return. I know that many of us, not all of us but many of us, have enjoyed the beautiful, quaint moments where we might go with—for example, my husband, Roger, for my birthday, Central Otago wine tours. But, specifically, I look for those family owned cellar door - only wineries, not because I’m a snob, as was referred to by a previous speaker in the last time we were speaking about this bill, not because we’re snobbish, but because there’s something beautiful about it. Also, I love to support our local businesses—in particular, our smaller businesses. With the changes we’re making in this bill, it will help so many businesses and add to growing the economy of New Zealand.

I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we are going to follow: I am going to put the question, and I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote.

Members, the House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10.06 p.m.