Some time ago, when I moved that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill, I had not expected to have the opportunity and privilege to respond to such a wide-ranging debate. Some parts of the debate have referred to clause 3 more obviously than others, but all have, of course, been in order, as you, Mrs. Heal, and Sir Michael have guided.

We have heard contributions from Mr. Gale, Mr. Duncan Smith and my hon. Friend Michael Connarty. All that I would say to Mr. Francois is that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk does not need the hon. Gentleman to get him into trouble; he is more than capable, as he is well aware, of doing it of his own accord, and sometimes he does it intentionally. I shall try to make relatively short responses, as I have already spoken on clause 3, and am mindful of your strictures to remain in order, Mrs. Heal.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Wood Green—[Hon. Members: "Woodford."] I am sorry. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford—[Hon. Members: "Green."] I am sorry. The right hon. Member for Chingford was generous—I am not sure that he wishes to be so now—in his observations of the tone that I have tried to adopt for the debate. Although we continue to disagree about the substance, it is important that the debate is conducted in a certain tone, and I have sought to do that. By all accounts, from both sides of the House, he made a remarkably impassioned speech in respect of the role of opposition, particularly with regard to the European Union. I am used to his tough tackling on the football pitch, to which he alluded, but he has been as passionate in this evening's debate as he is a tough tackler on the football field.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk reflected on pillar collapses in justice and home affairs issues. I will seek to stay within the terms of the perhaps more narrowly defined clause 3, Mrs. Heal. He is right to assert, however, that our negotiated position has ensured the right to opt in or out on any amending measure, Schengen-building measures and transitional measures. Whenever there is a transition from former pillar three to the new pillar one Community method, in the new democratic architecture, we have a chance to opt in on each proposal. At the end of the five-year transitionary period, we have the right to opt out en bloc, en masse, and can then apply to opt back in to each and every new measure.

My hon. Friend is right that if our decision had financial consequences, for example, if there were a common IT system to support some of the mechanisms currently in pillar three, or if UK staff were deployed in the management and support of such a mechanism, it would be appropriate for us to meet the costs of making those staff redundant and returning them to the UK if they were based elsewhere, geographically, in the EU. That is the type of issue that is being discussed, but we cannot take a view on the structure of the arrangement until we have taken a view on each and every proposal. However, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I have given to him before: we will take a view on the financial consequences in detail as we examine the details of each individual measure.