European Union (Amendment) Bill

What can I say to the hon. Lady? [Hon. Members: ““Say yes!””] I could say yes, and I will. Yes. How about that? That is a bit of honesty. But—there is always a good ““but”” in politics—the issue is not just about time; it is about quality of time. [Interruption.] Labour Members should hear me out, because many of them have not been in the Chamber during debates on the Bill. The point is that a mechanism was used to curtail debate in the time allocated. That mechanism provided for Second Reading debates, and not line-by-line scrutiny. The quality of the process has been appalling, because we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into holding generalised discussions, debates and arguments. Only on a few occasions have we been able to get to the substance. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, because a couple of days ago he got to the meat of the issue—it was the first occasion on which we had time to do so—and raised real concerns. Others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), did so, too. We should have been given the chance to do that day by day, but we were not.