European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

In view of the limited time, I will focus on just three aspects of this deeply dangerous and undemocratic Bill. First, I wish to add my voice to the many on both sides of the House expressing enormous concern about how the Bill allows the Government an unprecedented power grab. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his masterclass about how this undermines our sovereignty and represents a wholesale shift of power from elected representatives in Parliament to Ministers and civil servants acting without the encumbrance of accountability or democratic scrutiny.

Regardless of one’s views about Brexit, the Bill is a constitutional outrage. The rank hypocrisy that these proposals to undermine parliamentary sovereignty are being led by precisely those Members who sold the leave argument last year on the supposedly noble ideal of restoring exactly that sovereignty is breathtaking, even by the standards of Government Members. That is why measures to circumscribe those powers are so vital, including measures based on proposals, such as those of the Hansard Society, to establish a sift and scrutiny system for delegated legislation in general. The current processes are already manifestly failing.

Secondly, I want to highlight concerns about the Bill’s impact on environmental protection, and, in particular, about the governance gap—the Bill’s failure to provide for the proper enforcement of environmental laws and standards post-Brexit. So far, there has been no evidence that Ministers recognise the scale of the challenge. Research conducted by the House of Commons has identified more than 1,100 pieces of EU environmental legislation that are the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, yet the issue did not appear in the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, has not appeared in the Secretary of State’s statements so far, and certainly does not appear in the Bill.

Cutting and pasting laws from the EU’s statute book into the UK’s is simply not enough, because laws are only as effective as the mechanisms that implement and enforce them in practice. In the absence of mechanisms to replace the monitoring and enforcement roles of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, we will effectively be left with zombie legislation—it may be on the statute book, but it will not be enforceable. There needs to be positive action to create a new Government system including proper implementation, compliance and enforcement. When the Government argue that judicial review can adequately provide the sole mechanism for civil society to challenge the application of environmental law, it shows how little they understand the limitations of JR. It is far too limited in scope and remit, and in terms of access, remedies and sanctions.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

I will keep on for a little bit longer.

We need to transfer explicitly into UK law the key general environmental principles that are enshrined in the EU treaties: the precautionary principle, for example, and the “polluter pays” principle. A further regrettable omission from the Bill relates to animal welfare. The protocol on animal sentience which is so vital to our animal legislation was incorporated into article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, but the text of that treaty is not itself covered by the Bill, so the wording of that article is not replicated. I intend to table amendments on that issue.

Thirdly, and more substantively, I am deeply concerned that schedule 8 effectively ends the UK’s membership of the single market and the customs union. That is yet another masochistic red line from Ministers who are intent on leaving the EU whatever the cost to the UK’s economy, and regardless of the damage to the country’s long-term prosperity. Analysis indicates that leaving the customs union would result in a £25 billion-a-year hit to the UK economy and a Brexit bureaucracy bombshell for UK firms. So much for Brexit’s leading to a bonfire of red tape.

Ministers seem to think that they can just conjure up, in a few months, a customs union that is not “the” customs union, but which will deliver exactly the same benefits as those that we have now, and all that without paying for membership of the EU. I look forward to seeing how they plan to achieve that amazing feat, as I am sure that quite a few of my constituents would like to enjoy the benefits of institutions in Brighton without having to bother to pay the membership fee.

Far from transferring all EU law into UK law, the Bill fails to preserve the right to freedom of movement. Let me be very clear: my party’s policy on freedom of movement is unequivocal—we believe that it not only benefits our economy but, crucially, benefits our communities as well. Being able to work, study, live and love in 27 other member states is a precious gift. It is one that we should be extending to an increasing number of our own young people, not shrinking—not closing down their horizons; not denying. I also believe that we should say loudly and proudly that we celebrate the contribution of EU nationals who come to make a life here: they enrich our society.

I believe that, as people become increasingly aware of the human and financial costs of Brexit over the coming months—those costs were never made clear during the referendum campaign—they should have the right and the opportunity to change their minds, if they choose. When people take out phone contracts, for heaven’s sake, they have a chance to look again and to revisit their decisions. Why would we deny them that possibility when it comes to the biggest decision that this country has made in generations? That is why my party is committed to the proposal of a ratification referendum: a chance for people to judge the final deal that comes back from Brussels in the light of all that we are learning now about the costs of leaving, which were never apparent during the referendum campaign.

People who voted leave did not vote for falling wages, lower living standards and rising inflation. I do not believe that they voted to trash environmental protection, to create massive staff shortages in our hospitals and care homes, or to see food rotting in the fields because of the lack of workers to cultivate it. I do not believe that they voted to slam the door shut on our centuries-old tradition of proudly welcoming people from overseas. The very real consequences of Brexit were never spelt out in what was surely the most mendacious, toxic and cynical referendum campaign that we have ever seen, and that is why I shall vote against the Bill’s Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

During June’s election, I made two promises about Brexit to my electorate, now my constituents: first, that I would respect the outcome of the referendum; and secondly, that I would work to get the best deal for our fine city. Those are promises that I endeavour to keep every day—I am visibly proclaiming that—and I will do so today by voting for Labour’s reasoned amendment and against this Bill getting its Second Reading.

It is of course critical that we recognise the outcome of the referendum. The majority of my constituents, and of our country, voted to leave the EU, and they rightly expect their Parliament to get on with the process; I accept that. However, we are talking about not whether we should leave—although regrettably we have spoken a lot about that today—but how we do it. We were not voted in to give Ministers unfettered, unqualified and unchallenged access to doing as they wish. This Bill is fatally flawed, because it utterly bypasses the very Parliament that our constituents elected us to form. That is not a leave or remain issue, or a left or right issue, and it is certainly not an issue of patriotism; it is about believing in our British democracy. If we did accept the Bill tonight, what would we not accept? If Parliament could be demeaned and reduced to a footnote at the stroke of a Minister’s pen, and if decades of hard-won rights could be dissolved on the 16:50 train back to a Minister’s constituency, what would be the point of having this parliamentary democracy?

To accept this Bill is to accept that Parliament is the Executive’s creature. That is not taking back control. Parliament is sovereign and should have the due opportunity to act as such. We have been asked to take on trust Ministers’ assurances—“Don’t worry, the Bill will be improved over this process, and certainly don’t worry if it comes into law, because all these lovely powers you’re giving us, we’ll give straight back.” I say to the Chamber: be very wary of the politician who says there is no alternative but to give them absolute power over something. Similarly, be very wary of the politician who says that they will give that power back.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government did not want us to debate Brexit originally? It took a court case for article 50 to be brought to this place, so we should not trust this Government, because they have been dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way.

[Alex Norris]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that in lofty debates such as this, which people will study for decades, we ought to quote high-minded sources to respond to such questions. I am going to draw on a favourite quote of mine, from a guy called Jim Palmer. He is an American. He is not a founding father; he was a Baltimore Orioles pitcher and is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. He said something really illustrative:

“how you do one thing is how you do everything.”

As my hon. Friend says, the one thing that the Government did over article 50 tells us exactly how they will behave in the rest of this process, and exactly why we should not take the encouragement of Conservative Back Benchers to trust their Ministers. History has shown that not to be a good idea.

Those same Government Members have also said to us, “Hang on a minute, you’re just dragging your feet. You’ve not offered a constructive alternative.” I have sat here for pretty much every minute of the last seven hours and 20 minutes, and I have heard the constructive alternative offered from Opposition Members many times. We all agree that we will need to put European legislation into British law—in fact, I am quite surprised by how readily Government Members agree and cheerlead for that—but that while it is clear that the vast majority of it will be uncontroversial and technical legislation that we need to get on with, there needs to be a triage process that brings before Parliament the things that do not fit into that category. Otherwise, what is the point of us?

This could be a watershed moment for our democracy. We know the cynicism about the work that we do here and our motivations for doing it. People who have watched us today will have seen us at our best, and they should see us do this every day on such important matters. This should be a watershed moment in the Brexit process, too, because we know how much of a struggle that is proving. We are wandering around the continent, drifting from place to place, never quite sure who is with us and who is not. Those are the characteristics of a bad stag do, not a negotiation strategy.

Today could be watershed moment. Across the House, we have had common cause about wanting to work as equal partners with our European friends. Let us do that. Let us take their invitations to speak at the European Parliament. Let us say today that we are going to protect the rights of their citizens who live in our country. Let us change our debate, because I find in life that, even with the most hardened enemy, once we stretch a hand out, it is incredible how often a hand is stretched back.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris).

As I said in the general election campaign and since to my constituents, I respect the result of the referendum, but this Bill is not about whether Britain leaves the European Union. It is about how we leave it, what role Parliament has in the process and how we safeguard all our vital rights and protections as we leave. I believe that Brexit must not lead to any drop in those rights and protections and that the power to decide them should be brought back to Parliament. In fact, bringing powers back to Parliament was one of the major arguments of Brexit’s proponents. In March 2016, the Foreign Secretary announced his decision on how he would campaign in the referendum, saying:

“Sometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians… That enrages them… Democracy matters… At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that Britain can be unaffected.”

Well, we have not been unaffected. In fact, the Government are now looking to our decision to leave the EU as an excuse for far greater centralisation of power than we have had for almost 500 years. The Bill would put huge and unaccountable power into the hands of Ministers, sideline Parliament on major decisions and thereby put our crucial rights and protections at risk. Members should not just take my word for it.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent case of the Government acting illegally over employment tribunal fees is an example of how they cannot be trusted to act legally and justly for this country, and why Parliament needs to scrutinise them?

[Ruth George]

I absolutely agree.

The House of Commons Library, in its impartial comment, says:

“Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill grant the Government new and unprecedented powers.”

Parliament is being asked to grant wide powers when there is little idea yet of how they might be exercised.

I have seen for myself how the process of secondary legislation can be abused, when working on behalf of low-paid shop workers, many of whom are subject to attacks and injury. Five years ago, I was appalled at the secondary legislation Committee that debated some of the most abhorrent cuts proposed by the last Government —cuts to compensation for over 90% of innocent victims of crime. To their credit, every single Conservative Member on the First Delegated Legislation Committee called on the Government to withdraw or amend their proposals, including the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is not renowned for his opposition to spending cuts.

However, instead of listening to their own Members and to the whole Committee, and instead of reconsidering the legislation, the Government just changed the Committee. Six weeks later, the same proposed cuts came back to a second Committee with three Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the vice-chair of the Conservative party and the Conservative party chair’s parliamentary adviser. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) told us, the Conservatives on the new Committee said not one word during the two-hour debate on the proposals; instead, they simply voted them through.

It is wrong for the Government to use this Bill, which is fundamentally important to the process of Brexit, to seek such methods to undermine our powers in Parliament. This power grab is so significant that it undermines the primary purpose of the Bill—to transpose EU regulations into UK law.

We are expected to believe that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is listening to the comments made on both sides of the House about the flaws in this Bill, but he has not been seen in the Chamber for the last seven and a half hours of this debate, so I am not quite sure how much he is listening.

Such sweeping powers as the Government are seeking would cause lasting damage to the role and power of Parliament and do nothing to help deliver the Brexit deal we need—one that puts jobs and the economy first and maintains our rights and protections.

As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) put it just a month ago:

“It is about control. Do we make our laws according to our own democratic principles on the day we have left or not?”

The Bill says that we do not. For that hon. Member and for all other hon. Members, this Bill is about upholding our democratic principles. By voting against it, I will uphold those principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker,

“We will scrap the Conservatives’…White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on…the Single Market”

and putting “the economy first”. That was the manifesto on which Labour Members stood only a few months ago. We said that we would scrap this Bill and send it back. I beg Labour colleagues who are thinking about voting with the Government to consider that they stood, only a few months ago, on scrapping the White Paper, and I urge them to stand by the manifesto they stood for.

Some Conservative Members would, like ostriches, like to shove their heads into the sand—they want Brexit on any terms—but they are a minority. I believe that the majority of Conservative Members genuinely want a decent Bill that will aid the transition between our being in the European Union and being out of it.

I am a remainer. Just like most of my constituents, I would love to remain in the European Union—we will make that case—but I am also a democrat. However, being a democrat is not about just handing all powers to the Executive; it is about holding them to account each step of the way.

I have listened to lots of the arguments from Members on both sides of the House about how the Bill could be improved. There is a strategy—a legitimate strategy—of saying, “Let us pass it tonight and amend it in Committee.” However, I think that that is incorrect, because the flaws in the Bill are so huge and fundamental that if we followed that strategy, we would be fiddling with the deckchairs on a sinking ship. Unfortunately, what we must do is to send this Bill back.

I will outline a few areas in which the Bill fundamentally fails to live up to decent democratic principles and restricts the rights of our people. It removes the charter of fundamental rights from UK law. Let us be very clear that that charter provides digital rights, asylum rights, pension rights for LGBT people and safeguards for maternity rights. At the moment, for example, it ensures that a gay couple who marry here in the UK have their marriage recognised elsewhere in Europe.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the charter of fundamental rights. What is wrong with our Supreme Court, which is one of the most respected judicial systems in the world, providing those very same rights?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

There is nothing wrong with our Supreme Court, but what better than to have an additional protection? I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a ridiculous argument.

My next point is about safeguards for the current statutory instruments. Much of EU law has been brought into UK law as statutory instruments. Those statutory instruments are underpinned by EU law, which includes an ability to fine Governments for overstepping that law. If EU oversight is removed but the statutory instruments continue to exist, they will be weak to amendment through the negative procedure. That puts people’s rights to things such as TUPE and the working time directive at risk. Clearly, therefore, those statutory instruments should have additional statutory underpinning such that they cannot be removed using the negative procedure.

[Ruth George]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not trust the party that refused to implement the social chapter at all, with all its rights at work that come from Europe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call Mr Russell-Moyle, I would point out that every intervention is mucking up the chances of the remaining speakers who want to make a contribution. I call Mr Russell-Moyle.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I agree. The Bill also—[Laughter.] I wanted to move on quickly.

The Bill also fails completely to mention or touch on how some of the soft-law mechanisms will be brought into the UK framework, such as the open method of co-ordination. It does not even mention that area of EU co-ordination. We will clearly want to adopt significant parts of it, but the Bill is completely quiet about it.

Of course there is a need to give Ministers certain powers, but even the emergency powers provided during the second world war were not powers for Ministers to spend unfettered amounts. This Bill gives Ministers the power to spend such amounts and gives them unheard-of powers. It is not a democratic Bill, and it cannot be classed as bringing power back to this country or to this Parliament. Clearly what we need to do tonight is to vote against this Bill. We need to send it back and get the Government to give us a decent Bill that will preserve our democratic rights for our people and for our Parliament.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Perhaps we will not reach agreement about this. I disagree with every part of what the hon. Lady has just said. First, judicial review has been a highly successful mechanism for environmental campaigners. It is, in fact, from judicial review that the clean air measures have arisen. Secondly, the reason why it is particularly effective in the case of a national policy statement is that a policy statement is a policy statement by Ministers and therefore creates a presumption of Wednesbury unreasonableness if it is departed from, so it is very easy to use as a tool for judicial review. Thirdly, judicial review is the mechanism that the principles in the new clause of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, or the Opposition new clause or the new clause of the hon. Member for Wakefield, would have to operate on. It is not the case that the courts in our country would simply take a set of principles and apply them to some set of cases. They would not know what to do with them. The Government would have to be judicially reviewed for failing to apply those principles in their policy.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I will give way in a moment.

It is much better to be in a position where we can take the Government to judicial review for failing to apply a much more detailed set of policies, which are the Government’s policies, as approved in the House of Commons by resolution, and which have been fully debated and where we then know whether the court is likely to find that the action is or is not in accordance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

The hon. Lady is actually making my point. If one looks at new clause 60 or new clause 67, they clearly do not create a right of action against an individual. They create the possibility of judicial review of Government, and I accept the good intention of doing so. Instead, we have the possibility of judicial review of Government not in the hands of some private charity, group, NGO or whatever, but through a taxpayer-funded, statutory body that can take the Government to court, where the Government will be measured against a precise policy statement that is authorised by this House. That is a much more powerful vehicle. In fact, it is the most powerful vehicle available to us for the control of Government. We know nothing higher than the Supreme Court as a means of holding Government to account in relation to their own policies, as approved by the House of Commons. It is an ironclad method of proceeding. I accept that we would of course have prolonged discussion of what was in the policy statement and further prolonged discussion of exactly how the body was structured. There is a basis for debate, but the fundamental structure is much more powerful than what is proposed in either of the new clauses.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on some nice blue-sky thinking about what could come in the future, but I do not see how that is mutually exclusive to the new clauses that we are debating. They relate to values that the UK has signed up to through, among other things, the Rio principles and the Aarhus convention that are currently underpinned in EU law to ensure that they are binding in British law. Leaving the EU would mean that there is no underpinning for our courts to rely on them. The new clauses would allow the courts to use them and rely on them in other judgments. If the right hon. Gentleman’s blue-sky thinking comes forward, it could happen then as well.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

Order. I know that we are in Committee, but interventions must be brief.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

People will know that the EU has enormous capacity for negotiating trade deals, and we have been relying on it for the past 40 years. Over the past few years the EU has had an intricate dialogue with the United States on TTIP and with the Canadians on CETA to try to bring about some sort of harmonisation and agreement. TTIP has hit the buffers and is not going forward, but my point is that we simply do not have that negotiating capacity. If the EU’s huge capacity cannot achieve agreement in a short amount of time—it takes a long time to get these things right—what hope do we have? Very little.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the EU was able to extract additional protections on the environment and workers’ rights from the Canada deal because the EU worked together as a big bloc? At one moment it looked like the EU would be unable to extract those protections, and it happened only because Belgium and other countries insisted. On our own, we must not be able to be picked off by Canada, the US or any other country—they have already tried to pick off the EU.

[Geraint Davies]

That is precisely right. What we are now seeing with the Japan deal, as with CETA, is that it will now explicitly protect the right of states to set higher regulatory standards than their treaty partners; public services; the precautionary principle; labour rights; and sensitive economic areas. The deal will also make an explicit commitment to the Paris climate agreement and will safeguard policies intended to protect the environment.

With those blueprints for a harmonious future, we are now jumping ship. We will be left on our own, floating around in the sea and striking out to hold on to bits of timber for dear life. This is very frightening. Earlier we discussed the situation of a deal or no deal, but the problem is that when we do strike a deal, the EU is not there to penalise or punish us; it is simply there to respect the interests of the EU27, which it will. The EU27 will tell us what we are getting, and we will have to like it or lump it. Lump it would be much more painful—we would go on to WTO rules, which people often mention in this Chamber. People need to remember that WTO rules apply only to goods, not services. The trade in services agreement is currently being negotiated outside the WTO so, because 80% of our exports are services, a large amount of our exports will not even have trade with tariffs; there will simply be no agreement on trade. As there is ambiguity between goods and services, such as with cars—cars are two thirds services because of subcontracted labour, lawyers, payroll and various other things—it is a complex area.

A no deal situation would be catastrophic, and the Europeans know that, so they will say what they want and we will have to accept it. If that is unacceptable and much worse than the status quo, the people of Britain should have a final say with a vote on the exit deal. That is not in amendment 352—people do not need to worry about that—although the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has tabled amendment 120, which we will consider next week. Half the public already want a vote on the exit deal. Only 34% do not want a vote, and 16% do not know. As it emerges how appalling the future being created at the hands of this Government will be, there will be growth in support for such a vote.

Amendment 352 simply says that we should aim to, and would require us to, enjoy the current protections, rights and standards we have in the EU in future trade agreements, in the knowledge that those standards are going up, as I pointed out is happening in the case of Japan. All I am asking for is that we keep the current parity, so that as Europe moves up we at least stay the same, rather than plunge down into the depths of poverty, lower health standards and so on.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Why all the secrecy for what was available in that room, because there was certainly no assessment—or analysis, if we are playing with words—of the impact of the policy choices facing the Government and the country?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The education section starts by saying, “We will not touch on the effects on Horizon 2020 or Erasmus.” It does not touch at all on non-higher education. There is no impact assessment on summer schools or language teaching in this country. Clearly, the work was not really done even with an internet search.

[Paul Blomfield]

We are probably straying on to dangerous territory if we start talking about the content, such are the rules surrounding the documents until such time as they are made public, but those of us who have been there know that they provide no analysis and no impact assessment. So it was no surprise when the Secretary of State told the Brexit Committee last Wednesday that the Government had undertaken “no quantitative assessment” of the impact of leaving the customs union—just one of the policy choices we face. Yet just a few hours later, in a room just a few yards away, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that the Government had

“modelled and analysed a wide range of potential alternative structures between the EU and the UK, potential alternative arrangements and agreements that might be made.”

The Chancellor’s answer was developed in oral questions last Thursday by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is in his place. He said:

“Our sectoral analysis is made up of a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses examining activity across sectors, regulatory and trade frameworks and the views of stakeholders.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 588.]

Let us bear in mind that the Secretary of State had said that no quantitative assessment has been undertaken on the impact of leaving the customs union. So in this

“qualitative and quantitative analysis of regulatory and trade frameworks”

have the Government for some reason exempted the customs union?

--- Later in debate ---

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the position of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union now untenable? He said that he would resign if the former Deputy Prime Minister was forced out.

Have you received any indication, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the former Deputy Prime Minister will come to the House and correct the misleading statement that he made to us?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That is simply not a point of order. We are dealing with serious business here, and it needs no further comment from me.