Natascha Engel: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendment 1. Lords amendments 2 to 11. Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 209, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 210, and Government motion to disagree. Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of Lords amendments 12, 209 and 210....
Natascha Engel: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 23, 138 and 139. If agreed by the House, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal. I also remind the House that certain of the motions relating to the Lords amendments will be certified as relating exclusively to England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If...
Natascha Engel: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 147.
Natascha Engel: We now come to my favourite piece of parliamentary procedure, so in my last session in the Chair, I am delighted to ask the Whip to move the motion for the Reasons Committee. Motion made, and Question put forthwith ( Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 237 to 239. That Mims Davies, Louise...
Natascha Engel: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 11 and 33. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal. Clause 1
Natascha Engel: The hon. Gentleman’s thunder.
Natascha Engel: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 11 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith ( Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Natascha Engel: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for the leave of the House, as it is the second time he has spoken. I am sure that he will be given it.
Natascha Engel: Order. We are in danger of ranging far outside the Second Reading of the Bill and getting bogged down into specifics about individual parties. I understand why and where that is coming from, but if we could keep more closely to the Bill, that would be fantastic.
Natascha Engel: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman means the leader of the Labour party, or the right hon. Member for Islington North.
Natascha Engel: Order. I have a couple of things to say. Interventions are getting extremely long. Members are also referring to each other directly—we do not do that; we speak through the Chair. The whole tone of the debate until now has been very good, and I really do not want that to disappear. I understand the passions and the tensions, and I understand the importance of these matters, but the tone of...
Natascha Engel: If the Minister would like to respond, he is welcome to do so.
Natascha Engel: If the Minister would like to respond to that, it would be very helpful.
Natascha Engel: I thank all hon. Members for their points of order, and I thank the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for raising this point. It is important, and I am grateful to the Minister for having responded so positively to it. We will leave it there for now.
Natascha Engel: I think the hon. Lady has very successfully done so herself. As she can see, on the Treasury Bench is the Leader of the House, who will, I am sure, take up the matter with her. I thank her for the point of order and for giving me notice of it.
Natascha Engel: Order. If Members leaving the Chamber do so a little more quietly, we can hear the Minister. Thank you.
Natascha Engel: The amendment has been selected.
Natascha Engel: May I remind hon. Members that the eight-minute limit does include interventions? If everybody takes this much time, I am afraid that the last Member who wants to speak will not get to do so.
Natascha Engel: Thank you. As in the previous debate, if Members stay within an eight-minute limit, everyone will be able to get in and there will be plenty of time for wind-ups. That is not an imposed limit, just guidance for Members.
Natascha Engel: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should like to inform Members that if they speak for no more than eight minutes, everyone will get in. That would allow everyone to speak for eight minutes in the next debate as well. So if we could all stick to an informal limit of eight minutes, that would be fantastic.