EU Retained Law

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The dashboard worked perfectly well on an iPad, so I would have thought that it was not beyond the wit of Members of this House to get it to work. In many cases, the protections that we have in employment law in this country predate the European Union or we are ahead of the European Union. That is true of maternity rights, where we are ahead of the base rights in the European Union under our own law. To say, “Are we going to repeal bits that are not even EU law, but domestic law?” is missing the point of the statement.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Over a long time in this House, I have noticed that when the Government have done something well, the number of Opposition Back Benchers present for a statement is very few. I spy no Liberal Democrats at all—DUP Members are here, of course—and just four Labour Back Benchers were here at the start of the statement. They do not want to be here to listen to Brexit opportunities and the savings and benefits to this country. The able Minister said that there will be quarterly reporting, which I hope he will come to the House to do. Will he publicise that in advance, so that Liberal Democrats and Labour Members will know not to attend?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wise and witty suggestion.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Of course not—hon. Members on the Government Benches seem to agree with my hon. Friend—but if so why remove the provision? Why not keep it in?

The Government say there is no change of policy, but the removal of clause 17 is a change of policy. They complain that leaving the provision in will act as a pull factor, but that rather indicates that what they want is a change of policy. They tell us that this is not the right Bill for the provision and that it should be in the immigration Bill, but clause 17 is context and time-specific: it directs the Government to a negotiating objective during the very time limited period—a matter of months—that they now have to agree the future relationship. As the Secretary of State has said, we cannot bind our neighbours to our national law, so that is not a valid argument against putting any other commitment in any other law. This provision only commits the Government to a negotiating aim. They say it can be done through rules, but a negotiating aim cannot be pursued through immigration rules. So which is it—is it law, is it rules, is it an aim, or is it no change at all, as they have also claimed?

The Government have said the provision would bind their hands in negotiations but then became offended at the accusation that they were using children as a bargaining chip. Again, which is it? Are children a limit on the negotiations or not? They have also justified their argument on the grounds of the election manifesto, but the only words in that manifesto were:

“we will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution”.

There is not a word in that manifesto that implies this change of policy—and it is a change of policy—on child refugees. Just saying that it is not a change does not make it so. If it is not a change of policy, why does the provision need to be removed?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The shadow Minister brings up a hugely important area. As a former chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I consider it a very important issue. I hope the Government will commit to coming back to us, but separate from the Bill. I accept their argument that this Bill is the wrong place for this provision. It is much more important elsewhere.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point and for his partial agreement—I think—but if it is not acceptable in this Bill, why would it be acceptable in another? It is a negotiating aim, and we are told by the Secretary of State that the negotiations have already started.

To my understanding, all that has happened is that the Home Secretary has written a letter. I think that was in November. We have not yet heard what reply there has been or about any negotiations. I do not want to believe that the Government think so little of our country that they are pulling back from protection for the very small number of children that this clause originally covered. I hope that we as a country are secure enough in ourselves to be generous to those fleeing persecution. I ask Government Members to consider that this motion demonstrates a lack of compassion. The Government’s reasons are contradictory and there are no justifications in the manifesto for removing this very modest, limited but necessary provision to protect some of the most vulnerable children we can imagine.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The reality is that the House will have opportunities to debate the negotiating mandate and to instruct how those negotiations are taken forward. Any modelling for the future will have to take on board the future direction of the Commission under the new leadership. It will have to consider what actions the UK Government will take in response, and it will have to model what will happen elsewhere in the world, such as in China and the US. The reality is that one cannot forecast these things, but it is right that the House will have an opportunity to negotiate and discuss these things as part of shaping the mandate for the future.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition is slightly wrong to say that the letter takes a no-deal exit off the table. That is impossible, because it is up to the other nations of the European Union whether or not they grant an extension. The only definite way to take a no-deal exit off the table is, as someone once said, to vote for this deal, which is exactly what this House should do. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State agree?

Withdrawal Agreement: Proposed Changes

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I do not think I said that I was not quite sure. I think I used the words, “It would have been something that was considered,” but that the House should not read anything into that in any way. I think that is what I said, virtually verbatim, and that remains the position.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister could help the House. Opposition Members say that they are not supporting a deal because they are worried about workers’ rights, yet if we had a deal, it would be this House that would decide on workers’ rights, and if they were ever in government, they could do whatever they liked. Can we conclude only that the Opposition do not think they will ever be in government?

[James Duddridge]

I think everyone in the House believes in higher protections for workers’ rights and maintaining and expanding them over time. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the Opposition’s level of confidence: not only are they not confident that they will be in government to improve workers’ rights, but they do not seem to be confident that they will even win a general election. They are running scared of going back to the people because they know that they are trying to overturn the will of the people who wanted Brexit.

Irish Border: Customs Arrangements

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I am tempted to give a simple answer to a straight question, but, because it relies on detail, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and confirm what I think is the bleeding obvious. Given what he says, it seems to me that there is an obvious answer—[Hon. Members: “Give it!”] I have said I will give him a good answer and make sure it is proper in relation to that Act.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The British Government are not going to build a hard border in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government say they will not allow a hard border in Northern Ireland, and the EU cannot build a hard border in Northern Ireland, so who is going to build this hard border?

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend eloquently makes a point. We have said that we will not put a border in place, the Irish do not want to put a border in place, and the EU do not want to put one in place along the north-south line.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

It is a little dismissive for the hon. Gentleman to say that all this is nonsense. That was the first SNP question, so saying that we have already heard the nonsense seems a tad premature. The reality is that the Government are preparing extensively for no deal. We have a big information campaign that has launched, over 300 projects are under way, and we are working actively and constructively with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

23. If the Bill that passed through this House yesterday becomes an Act of Parliament, it would govern what we do in this country, but of course we cannot guarantee a no deal, because the European Union might not agree to an extension. So will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will continue to prepare for no deal despite any Act of Parliament, because what happens is not within our control?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is a keen observer of these matters, and he is absolutely correct: the decision on an extension is not a—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says “So what”; I am merely stating the legal position. I am sorry that she finds the legal position somewhat distasteful, but that is the legal position. The legal position on an extension is that it requires the support of every member state including the United Kingdom, so my hon. Friend is correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps chuntering, but my hon. Friend is correct: we would need to continue to prepare for no deal, because it is within the scope of any member state to block an extension. That is the legal position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

First, as I said in my previous answer, there has been no rowing back from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is an area of common accord between us. Secondly, the reason I pointed towards north-south co-operation is that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware, the Prime Minister drew a distinction in the letter to President Tusk between the backstop and the Northern Ireland protocol. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that, while the two terms are often used interchangeably in the Chamber, there is a distinction between them, particularly on the basis that the north-south co-operation, the common travel area and the benefits of the single electricity market are distinct from the points in terms of alignment.

As for right hon. and learned Gentleman’s further question around the legally operative text, I addressed that point to some extent in my remarks in the Chamber yesterday in that there is a distinction between the European Commission saying that all aspects need to be set out in a legally operative text by 31 October and looking at, for example, what role the joint committee will have during the implementation period, because the implementation period means that things need to be in place by the end of December 2020 or, if extended by mutual agreement, for one or two further years. It is therefore within that that there is a distinction to be drawn.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

T4. Does the Secretary of State think there should be a general election before the next European Council meeting so that the British people can decide whether they want the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister, who will keep us in the European Union, or whether they want to return our excellent current Prime Minister, who will take us out by 31 October?

[Stephen Barclay]

Yes, we need to know who, at the 17 October council, can negotiate for the British people and, in particular, who can deliver on the express will set out in the referendum. What we have from Labour Members is doublespeak that will leave us in legislative purgatory, because they are saying, on the one hand, that they will vote against every deal that is put forward—three times they voted against the deal, and their own deal was rejected by the House as well—yet they also vote against no deal.

Well, the inevitable consequence is that they are not prepared to leave, even though their own manifesto said they are. The real question for the British public at the next election will be, how can they trust what Labour says in its manifesto on Brexit when it has gone back on every word it said at the last general election?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 General Committees

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 859).

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Sir Lindsay, for what—by any standards—is an important debate, which is about whether the United Kingdom left the European Union on 12 April. As you know, I would have preferred to have the debate on the Floor of the House.

I shall be voting against the regulations. Whichever way the Committee votes at the end of this debate, Sir Lindsay, you will report the regulations to the House and no other proceedings will follow automatically. However, I shall later press for a substantive vote on the Floor of the House.

I remind the Committee that, with his insulting arrogance, Donald Tusk described this unjustified extension of time—which the European Council imposed on the Prime Minister, although it was dressed up as an agreement and as a treaty, which it is not—with the words:

“Please do not waste this time.”

We certainly will not.

I and 82 other hon. Members have called this debate to annul the regulations, which purport to authorise the extension to 31 October of the exit day defined under section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. When the withdrawal Bill was going through Parliament, “exit day” was defined as

“such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”.

No parliamentary procedure was applied. The Bill was amended so that the Act specifically defined “exit day” as

“29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.”

Section 20(4) enabled a Minister of the Crown to

“amend the definition of ‘exit day’…to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom”,

if the day and time at which the treaties were to cease to apply to the United Kingdom under article 50(3) were different from 29 March at 11 pm. Schedule 7 of the Act laid down that a statutory instrument under section 20(4) could be made only by affirmative resolution approved by each House of Parliament.

The draft exit day regulations were approved following debates in both Houses on Wednesday 27 March 2019. The very next day, on 28 March, the exit day regulations came into force at once, moving exit day to 11 pm on Friday 12 April. The Government exploited the Cooper-Letwin Bill, which they said that they opposed, and used it to overturn the approval procedure and turn it into the annulment procedure that, disgracefully, we now face. Astonishingly, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), said that the Government were making that change because

“the Government have no choice but to improve the Bill and limit its most damaging effects.”

He said that the reason why the Government were seeking that change was

“simply to provide the speed that I think this House would want in the context of a deal having being agreed.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1189-1190.]

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Is it not correct that the amendment was probably not available to Members when it was debated because the Clerks were having to produce the amendments on the same day? Therefore, no proper consideration was made of that amendment to primary legislation.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is completely right. That is part of the disgraceful way in which all of this has been done. The speed was certainly breathtaking. The suggestion that the deal had been agreed is itself a breathtaking statement; really, it was imposed on us by abject surrender.

The regulations that moved exit day to 31 October were rammed through at 3.15 pm on Thursday 11 April by the Minister and laid before the House at 4.15 pm on the same day. Let us remember that section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is inextricably bound with exit day, with the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 in lockstep. The section, says, quite clearly and expressly:

“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”

Repeal of the 1972 Act is axiomatic to carrying through the democratic referendum vote that took place on 23 June 2016, because that Act is the constitutional and domestic legislative means by which the voters of the United Kingdom were shackled to all treaties and laws imposed on them, without exception—including rulings of the Court of Justice. Those laws are invariably passed behind closed doors by qualified majority vote of the Council of Ministers of the other 27 member states of the European Union

It is about who governs this country and how they do so—general election manifestos and freely exercised democratic votes of the British electorate are the basis of our parliamentary Government, established over centuries—and whether the wishes of the British electorate prevail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I am slightly taken aback by that statement. My hon. Friend is someone whom I have long admired and looked up to—he has been in the House for more than 30 years and is well known for his constitutional expertise—but he makes a pretty serious allegation that the Government are putting through legislation that they are constitutionally not entitled to put through. I hope that, at some point, the Minister will address that, or that my hon. Friend will have the chance to expand on his point, but it surprises me. I compare the Government’s approach to that on article 50, as I said—because a treaty was involved, they believed that they had the power to extend article 50 without recourse to Parliament, and it took a court case to illustrate that invoking article 50 fundamentally changed legislation and so Parliament’s approval was required.

Given my hon. Friend’s intervention and that he has talked about Government through Parliament, not Parliament through Government, the other point that I find surprising is that he now appears to be saying that the Government are acting in bad faith. With his overview of the evolution of our unwritten and flexible constitution, is he coming to the conclusion, perhaps, that it is better to have parliamentary government, rather than Government through Parliament? On that basis, from his own arguments, surely he has now changed his mind on the Cooper-Letwin Bill, which came about partly because of the legislature’s mistrust of the motives of the Executive. The legislature was concerned that the Executive was not putting in place the procedures needed to stop no deal, which all of us in the room can at least agree would be absolutely catastrophic for the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I am amazed that my banal remark has provoked an intervention, but I will give way.

[Mr Bone]

We cannot have an hon. Member misrepresenting the views of other Members. No deal is the best thing for this country—my hon. Friend knows it and we all know it. Take that back, sir!

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

Again, the hon. Gentleman will need to look at the Bill when it comes forward. What we voted for on previous occasions was a meaningful vote. We have been in discussions with Opposition parties and, as referenced in an earlier question, Members across the House, to take on board some of the concerns raised in those debates, and those will be reflected in the legislation brought to the House.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Secretary of State could point out that the Opposition’s wish will be granted when the European elections take place next Thursday. That will be a genuine vote on what people think in this country. We will need to look at the policies of the party that finishes up with the most votes. Does he agree that that will clearly show what the people want?

[Stephen Barclay]

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me that we have had a people’s vote. It was won in 2016 and that was reflected in the Labour party’s manifesto. Once again, we hear Labour Members saying one thing to the electorate when they face an election but doing another when they come to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

Yes, because the withdrawal agreement will need to be ratified, and ratification includes the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I wonder if the excellent Secretary of State has had an opportunity to watch “Brexit: Behind Closed Doors”. The BBC has hidden it away on BBC Four, but it is quite a revealing programme. In it, the lead negotiator for our exit from the European Union, Olly Robbins—who I think is in Brussels this week—says that because he has done such a rotten deal he cannot come back to the United Kingdom and is applying for Belgian citizenship. Is that appropriate, Secretary of State?

[Stephen Barclay]

Without straying too much into my television viewing habits of recent weeks, I must confess to my hon. Friend that I am intending to watch that documentary. I have seen clips of it, including the one to which he has referred. As he will appreciate, given my current diary, I do not have a huge amount of television time, but I will be sure to make time to watch it in the coming days.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to make a few comments on tonight’s debate. Like the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) who sponsored the Bill, we will support the Lords amendments. From our point of view, they have tidied up some of the wording in the main subsections, and they have put the original drafting into more effective and tighter wording.

I want to pick up on some of the questions that have been asked across the Chamber. Has such a major constitutional change ever been rushed through in such a hurry? English votes for English laws is the most significant constitutional change in the past 30 years, and that did not even have an Act of Parliament before being put through. The Westminster power grab, driving a coach and horses through the devolution settlement, had 19 minutes of debate. The entire Scottish contingent of 59 MPs were allowed one word during that debate. We were allowed to say, “No”, and then we were outvoted. So the ERG should not talk to anyone on our Benches about the lack of democratic process.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

Thanks to the hon. Gentleman’s friends, I have little time to speak and I do not want to take up time that the Minister will want towards the end.

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), whom I have a great deal of respect for, for the length of service that he has given to this House, simply got his facts wrong. He spoke about when Oliver Cromwell addressed this Parliament. Oliver Cromwell had been dead for 50 years before this Parliament existed. That is even if “this Parliament” means the Parliament of Great Britain, because the Parliament of the United Kingdom did not come along for another 100 years after that. Even with the protection of the Almighty, Oliver Cromwell would not have smelt too nice if he had come here 150 years later.

As for the nonsense that because an Act of Parliament was passed in a previous Parliament, this Parliament does not like to do anything about it, what happened to the sacred principle that no Parliament can bind a successor? If that principle did not exist, we would not need elections at all, but some people on the Conservative Benches think that having elections is some kind of democratic outrage—“They shouldn’t be allowed”, or, “People don’t need the chance to change their minds.”

The same people also say that in the 2017 election, over 80% of people voted for the two major UK parties whose manifestos said they would respect the result of the referendum—I think that was a mistake by Labour, but it cannot be changed now. In 2015, however, 85% of people voted for parties that said they wanted to stay in the European Union. How can it be that between 2015 and 2017, 80% of the people were allowed to change their minds, but between 2016 and 2019, 3% are not allowed to change their minds?

As for that idea that everyone knew what they were doing in 2016, no less a person than the Attorney General admitted this weekend that he had misunderstood and that the Government had underestimated just how complicated it was going to be. If the Government’s chief legal adviser did not realise how complicated it was going to be, what chance did 33 million other people have in casting their votes?

It is right that Labour supported article 50 at the time, but Labour made a lot of mistakes at the start of the process—serious tactical mistakes—and I am pleased that a lot of them are coming around to understand and to make good those mistakes. I am a bit worried that their leader might be about to make the biggest tactical mistake on Brexit of the whole lot, but I hope he can be pulled back from that.

The single biggest difficulty, as has been said, is that the Prime Minister has made a mess of the negotiations from day one. Conservative Members complain about the number of times that she promised, “We’re leaving on 29 March”, as if that was some kind of day handed down on tablets of stone from Mount Sinai, but it is just another example of the Prime Minister creating utterly impossible expectations. I am sorry, but if the Prime Minister’s impossible expectations cause problems for the Conservative party, that is not my problem, and I want to see the day when it is no longer Scotland’s problem.

Far too much of the debate about Brexit has not been about what is in the best interests of this generation; it has paid no regard at all to the interests of future generations—it has been all about what is in the best interests of the Conservative party. It might be best for us all if the Conservative party’s existential crisis came to its natural conclusion and the rest of us could get on with building a better nation, a better set of nations and a better society for us and our descendants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

The Prime Minister has been very clear that she is seeking the shortest possible extension to make sure that we leave in an orderly fashion with a deal.

My Secretary of State suggested on Second Reading that the House of Lords—the other place—might wish to correct the flaws in the Bill. The combined effect of the Lords amendments is to correct deficiencies in the drafting and to mitigate some of the severe impacts that the Bill could otherwise have triggered. Like the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), I will address each of the amendments in turn.

The amendments tabled to clause 1 in the name of the noble Lord Robertson—Lords amendments 1 to 3 —reduce the chance of an inadvertent no deal. As I pointed out in Committee, the Bill as originally drafted

“creates a real risk that we could be timed out and be unable to agree an extension with our European partners and implement it in domestic law.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1189.]

The Bill requires that motion to be moved on the day after Royal Assent. If we run past midnight, that would mean that we were debating the motion on Wednesday, the same day as the Council.

The noble Lord has identified a further flaw in the drafting whereby—at page 1, line 2—it states that only the Prime Minister can move a motion in the House of Commons in the form set out in this Bill. Members of the House will be familiar with the fact that the usual drafting states a “Minister of the Crown”. In seeking to restrict the moving of this motion to just the Prime Minister, it would mean that the Prime Minister could not travel on Wednesday until after 1 pm, when she would be required to move the motion, disrupting discussions with EU leaders ahead of Council. The House will appreciate the importance of the Prime Minister meeting European leaders before the Council and the need to be ready to make the case for an extension. It is difficult to see how frustrating this process would help the UK to obtain a positive outcome. As such, the Government support these amendments.

Lords amendment 4, tabled in the name of the noble Lord Goldsmith, removed clause 1(6) and (7) of the Bill, requiring the Prime Minister to return to Parliament after the European Council to seek agreement to the length of the extension. We did consider a version of this amendment in this House, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), but those on the Opposition Benches voted against it. We are now in a situation where Labour peers are once again correcting the errors that were inherent in the original Bill. If subsections (6) and (7) were allowed to stand, we would need to return to the House and seek its approval for an extension on Thursday, even if that extension had already been agreed on Wednesday. That simply does not make sense.

[Mr Bone]

The excellent Minister is right that the amendment was moved in this House and roundly defeated. In fact, the whole point of the Bill originally was that Parliament took control of the date. For some reason I cannot understand, that has now been abandoned, which makes this Bill totally irrelevant. Of course, we can vote how we like today because it will not make any difference, will it, Minister? The Prime Minister now has the authority to do what she likes.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I have already pointed out that I think this Bill is unnecessary. The effect of these amendments is to restore the power of the royal prerogative, so I think I can agree with him on that. Of course—and I say this to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who made this point—if an extension were not agreed, the Prime Minister would want to come back to the House at the earliest opportunity to set out the next steps.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way and with his usual sincerity. The matter of virtue is not to be adjudicated by the Chair, but his point is on the record.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are our defender of the rights of this Parliament. Surely it is within your gift to make this farce stop and say there can be no Third Reading—no more votes!

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman invests me with powers that I do not possess. I do not know whether I should be grateful to him. If he were right, perhaps I would be, but he isn’t, so I can’t. I fear we will have to leave it there, but I have heard his dulcet tones, and they will ring in my ears for some considerable time to come. I thank him for what he has said.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Question put forthwith (Order, this day), That the Bill be now read the Third time.