Road Traffic and Street Works

Mark Francois Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about speeding offences on roads to which a 20mph limit applies; to make provision about the enforcement of moving traffic offences; to require 24 hour staffing of works on specified public roads; and for connected purposes.

As I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, life as a motorist has changed significantly over the past two decades. Cars have become safer, more efficient, greener and quieter, and yet despite the fact that the motor car is possibly one of the greatest contributors to human wealth, happiness and freedom, it has become seen by many as the root of all evil. Despite the enormous benefits that cars bring to our constituents’ families up and down the land and, indeed, to people across the world, for many motorists, the world seems to be filled with councillors and officials who are dedicated to making their lives more difficult. Driving is becoming a minefield of potential traps and penalties, such that drivers are becoming paranoid and resentful about the entire system. When that happens, order tends to break down, and the time has come for a rebalancing.

In the Bill, I propose three modest measures that would achieve a better balance and would hopefully see better results generally for motorists and members of our communities across the board. First, I propose that anybody caught speeding between 20 mph and 30 mph does not receive penalty points, rather they would be required to attend a speed awareness course. Repeat offences would require repeat attendance at speed awareness courses. I should declare an interest, having been at a speed awareness course recently after I was caught unwittingly doing 24 mph on the Embankment, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury—not at the same time or in the same vehicle, but he was also done for a similar offence.

The roll-out of 20 mph speed limits across the country has brought benefits in terms of road safety, but it has left many thousands of drivers disproportionately punished for straying over the limit. The fact that drivers can receive three penalty points for doing 24 mph in a 20 mph zone and for doing 57 mph in a 50 mph zone seems unfair to many and is in danger of discrediting the system. In addition to penalty points and a fine, drivers so punished would also face higher insurance premiums at a time when premiums are rising significantly in any event. As it stands, it is possible for someone to lose their driving licence by driving at 24 mph four times in three years.

Two years ago, it was revealed that as 20 mph zones were rolled out across London, Transport for London was setting a target of a million speeding fines a year with the Met police. That represents a huge increase in prosecutions and the accumulation of points. Analysis of Department for Transport data by Claims.co.uk confirms that of those speeding in a 20 mph zone, 49% were exceeding the limit by 5 mph or more, and only 19% were driving above 30 mph. Those numbers, of course, imply that 51% of those caught speeding were doing less than 25 mph.

In evaluations, speed awareness courses have proven to be significantly more effective in preventing reoffending than penalty points and a fine. If our objective is to improve road safety, particularly on residential roads, it would be more effective to put people through repeated courses, perhaps with increasing intensity and time required. That would be a more proportionate approach and would achieve better road safety. Points would of course still apply for those who fail to attend courses or, indeed, who fail their courses, which I understand is a possibility.

The second element of the Bill is for non-speeding traffic offences enforced by a local council or body other than the police. A first offence in those circumstances at a particular location should result in a warning letter, rather than a fine. A subsequent offence at the same location would attract a fine in the normal manner. Over the past few years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of traffic enforcement cameras operated by local authorities. In London alone, nearly 3.2 million tickets were issued in 2022-23, extracting about £200 million from motorists. The number of councils approved by the Government to operate enforcement in that way has increased steadily. There are regular reports in the media of the earnings of particular cameras. The most successful camera in Birmingham apparently pulls in £10,000 a day from drivers who stray into bus lanes.

A number of councils that have introduced enforcement cameras have started with a grace period, during which erring drivers have been issued with a warning letter for their first offence at a particular location, recognising that a sudden change may not be immediately appreciated by many. In Liverpool, the city of my birth, when cameras were brought in at one particular location, 1,400 drivers were caught out within the first 24 hours. Happily, they all received a warning letter first. That is a good and civilised principle, and it maintains public support for the enforcement system. It recognises that the vast majority of drivers will have made a genuine error, will learn their lesson and will not make the same mistake again.

This very British sense of giving people the benefit of the doubt should continue, and this Bill would make it a permanent feature. Anyone who commits a moving traffic offence—caught in the yellow box, straying into a bus lane or turning left when they should not—enforced by a local authority with a camera for the first time at a particular location would only receive a warning letter. Subsequent offences at the same location would attract a fine in the normal manner.

Finally, the third element of my Bill says that any roadworks on an A road should not be left unattended at any time. We know, as Members of Parliament travelling around our constituencies and to and from London, that the Government have struggled to control and minimise disruptive roadworks. Anyone who drives in any major city will say that unannounced roadworks with poor traffic management and inconsiderate positioning are a source of huge delay and aggravation—even more so when those works are seemingly abandoned and lifeless, sometimes for days.

Even in the past few days Hyde Park Corner, one of the busiest junctions in the capital, has been beset with works and temporary traffic lights, with not a soul in sight after 5 pm. There is a polite Government consultation out at the moment on increasing fines and tinkering a bit with the current system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) introduced his ten-minute rule Bill, the Roadworks (Regulation) Bill, last year with an imaginative and more radical set of measures to address the same problem, and his “Can the Cones” campaign hit the mark with many.

My proposal is simple. It would require contractors to ensure that no roadworks on any A road can ever be left unattended. Someone must always be on hand to deal with problems, speak to the public, alert authorities to traffic issues and generally manage the site. That obligation would also provide a powerful incentive for the work to be completed quickly and the duty could be satisfied by having at least one person always working on the site—a very efficient use of resources and one that would show the public that contractors are being as diligent as possible and works are being completed as swiftly as possible. Above all, motorists would know that their safe and smooth passage through the works was being supervised at all times.

These three simple measures would improve all our lives, with greater road safety, a greater sense of proportion and civilisation in the enforcement of non-speeding traffic offences and less aggravation for motorists going through abandoned works.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Kit Malthouse, Royston Smith, Will Quince, Nickie Aiken, Sir Desmond Swayne, Philip Davies, Mark Menzies, Shailesh Vara, Julie Marson and Steve Tuckwell present the Bill.

Kit Malthouse accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed (Bill 152).

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) kindly mentioned in his speech that I brought in a similar Bill, or at least a Bill on the same subject, last year. I commend him on what he has done and put on the record that the roads Minister was here to listen. If my right hon. Friend or I put in for an Adjournment debate to give the roads Minister an opportunity to reply on the subject, perhaps the Chair might be prepared in due course to look favourably on such a request?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know how to apply for an Adjournment debate. However, it is just possible he might find favour with Mr Speaker, as he would probably find favour with me on this subject. Other than that, I do not think it is a matter for the Chair.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill (Business of the House)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill—

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) As soon as the proceedings on the Motion for this Order have been concluded, the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill shall be read.

(3) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(4) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (16)(a) of this Order.

(6) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (5)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(9) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (9) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(11) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(12) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (11) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(13) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(14) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(15) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(16) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(17) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.

(19) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Chris Heaton-Harris)

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and she cites yet another powerful example of the extension of rights that is afforded by the charter to all our constituents, including those in the devolved nations.

I want to say a word now about the views of my constituents and to represent their views. My constituents voted overwhelmingly—by more than 75%—to remain in the EU. They did so for many reasons—some very practical, and others deeply principled—but in all of the many conversations I have had with my constituents since the referendum, the word they have used most often is “values”. My constituents voted to remain in the EU because the EU represents their values of tolerance, diversity and internationalism, and there is no clearer articulation of these values than the charter of fundamental rights.

Many of my constituents are deeply distressed by the EU referendum result, and they have been looking to the Government for comfort and for a negotiated Brexit deal based on the values we share with the EU. Adopting the charter of fundamental rights into UK law would send a strong signal about a continued basis of shared values with the EU and a commitment to uphold the highest standards of human rights protections as the foundation for any future trade deal with the EU. Without this commitment and this level of protection, the Government demonstrate once again that they have no commitment to high standards and that the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world risks being based on a race to the bottom in terms of protections for UK citizens.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My constituents voted overwhelmingly, by 67%, to leave—there were variations around the country. I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech, but is she seriously suggesting that the main reason most of her 75% voted to remain was the charter of fundamental rights?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is not my contention; my contention is that the charter of fundamental rights is a very clear articulation of one of the many reasons why my constituents voted so overwhelmingly for remain, and I seek to represent their views today, as I am sure he seeks to represent the views of his constituents in this important debate.

The charter is the most up-to-date human rights framework from which UK citizens benefit, and it is incomprehensible that the Government should not want to commit to the same high standard as the basis for all future human rights protections for UK citizens post Brexit and as a basis for continuing to develop UK human rights law. That they will not do so is revealing and deeply concerning.

My constituents did not vote for Brexit. But, above all, they did not vote for Brexit on any terms. They seek reassurance from the Government, and they do not find it in this deeply flawed Bill. It is essential that UK citizens can continue to rely on the highest standards of human rights protection post Brexit. I will continue to fight for that, and I will vote for these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

This situation has evolved over a number of years, and it continues to do so. I do not want to introduce too much of a partisan element into the debate, but I want to give an example of how the situation has changed over the past few years. When we debated the Lisbon treaty in this House in 2008—something that I was actively involved in at the time—the policy of the then Labour Government was that the charter should not be justiciable in the United Kingdom’s courts. In fact, the then Government were at great pains to stress—

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Is this an intervention?

[Mr Francois]

It is. The then Labour Government said that they had a protocol that specifically ruled that out. That is how much things have changed.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

There has been much misrepresentation in the House of the protocol, but it is quite clear what it said: the rights contained in the charter were existing rights. In other words, the charter did not create any new rights that had not previously existed. The position of those on the Treasury Bench is that the rights are of long standing, and they apply to UK citizens. I am very keen to ensure that where those rights may not be adequately protected, the gaps are filled. But to say that protocol 30 was an opt-out, which is how it has been portrayed in the debate, is, quite frankly, inaccurate and not right.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that, and it simply reinforces the case we are making: that Tory Ministers simply cannot be trusted with powers of this nature.

We have also frequently heard the argument about the need for legal certainty, but the Bill as drafted does not provide that legal certainty. What guidance does it give to judges post-Brexit as to how they are supposed to interpret the law that originated from the European Union? Absolutely none. The idea of a preliminary reference to the European Court is of course no more, because of the red line on the ECJ. That is completely gone. The remedy that citizens once had to go to the European Court is also gone. So the idea that, post Brexit, the Bill will assist our constitutional arrangements and provide clarity is simply wrong.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

No, people will not be able to go to the ECJ—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but they will be able to go to the British Supreme Court, just down the road from here, where decisions that affect them and their countrymen will be taken by British judges according to British law. What is wrong with that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have nothing against British judges taking decisions. What I am talking about is the failure of this Bill to provide clarity about how the law now will be transposed into the law then. Let us talk about a judge down the road who is faced, for example, with a citizen demanding a remedy of holding the Government to account for failure to deal with pollution. They would previously have had a right to go to the European Court. What will be their right under the Bill? The Government have absolutely no idea. Let us have a Bill that gives that clarity post Brexit, which this Bill manifestly fails to do.

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, I am not giving way again; I have given way three times, and many Members want to speak in this debate.

Let me summarise by saying this: the Bill is shoddy, and undermines the parliamentary democracy that it was meant to enhance. It is not worthy of support, and I urge colleagues not to support it tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The last seven hours have demonstrated what this place does best. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) have made excellent contributions to the debate. They have demonstrated that this Chamber of this House of Commons is able to debate matters in a way that no other place can, and that is what makes the content of the Bill so offensive.

Listening to Government Members today, I have heard several variations of something that they will all know is called the politician’s fallacy: “Something must be done. This Bill is something. Therefore we must do it.” I heard no substance or content, simply an argument that this is what we have and therefore we must do it. Nobody on the Opposition Benches is arguing that the wholesale adoption of European law should not take place; the argument is that the way in which the Bill is written is an affront to the democratic values that we hold dear.

We have heard from the right hon. Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that the Bill is flawed. They have all said in their own words that the Bill is flawed, but they have hope, anticipation, expectation and trust in the Government. They have been assured that amendments will come forward to assuage their concerns. Rather than consider what might come, I ask them to look at how this Government have treated this House. The article 50 vote was delayed while the Prime Minister pursued a legal case to prevent her own Members from having a vote on it. There is a motion before the House tomorrow that will rig the Committee system to allow a minority Government to have a majority on Bill Committees, which is simply unacceptable.

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

I will not.

Words such as “the Minister may make regulations” are littered throughout the Bill, and clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17 produce unprecedented levels of power for the Ministers on the Treasury Bench. We are to understand that they have been in listening mode today, but when asked either by Government Members or by Opposition Members to address some concern not once have they intervened to do so. They have sat quietly, passing notes—I can only presume to the Government Members who delivered their whipped speeches so wonderfully—instead of making a contribution to the argument.

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

No, I will not give way.

We also have a programme motion that seeks to allow 64 hours of debate on what Government Members have described as one of the greatest constitutional changes in their lifetime. The money resolution seeks to allow any amount of money to be spent by Ministers if they deem it necessary.

[Mr Francois]

I will give you one last chance.

[Gareth Snell]

No, I am not going to take it.

The ways and means resolution allows for “any taxation”. I thought the Conservative party was opposed to general taxation, but its Members are voting this evening for taxation for the sake of paying for a Bill that they will not allow to be scrutinised in this House. We are elected by our constituents as equals to have a say on the future of our country once we leave the European Union. No seat delivered a greater leave vote than mine. My constituents made their voice clear and I respect that, but they sent me here to get the best deal for them. I will be denied that right if I vote for this Bill’s Second Reading this evening.

The leave campaign talked about taking back control, but this Bill takes control away from Parliament. We will be relegated to observers in something that we have been told is the greatest constitutional event of our lifetimes. I will be joining my colleagues in voting against the Bill’s Second Reading, because it is not what my constituents want, it is not what I came here to do, and I refuse, like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, to vote myself out of a role in the Brexit negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I begin by trying to find a bit of consensus and agreement across the House. We are all basically agreed that we need to improve the Bill in Committee. Everyone seems to suggest that lots of amendments are required to improve this legislation.

I may have inadvertently misled the House last Thursday when I broke the crushing news that only eight days will be available in Committee, because actually only seven days will be available. That is because we are going to lose four hours out of the eight in days five and eight. So we will have seven days to rewrite the whole of the law system of the United Kingdom, whereas 41 days were given to the Maastricht treaty, 29 were given to the Lisbon treaty and 21 were given to entering the Common Market. We will have only seven days for this great repeal Bill—what an absolute embarrassment for this Government. They had better come back with a proper programme motion to give this House sufficient time—

[Mr Francois]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have not got time for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, so he should sit down. On this side of the House, we have been trying to outdo each other in describing this Bill. I would describe it as a “Hammer House of Horror” Bill: it gifts unprecedented power to this Executive, drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement and presents a profound threat to our human rights. It is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of a Bill that more undermines this “taking back control” mantra of all those who parroted it ad nauseam when they were talking about leaving the European Union.

I would not vote for this Bill in a month of Sundays. The UK is engaged in an almost unprecedented exercise of national self-harm with this whole Brexit project. We are indulging in a grotesque episode of economic, political and cultural self-flagellation and, by God, we are determined to give ourselves a damn good thrashing! We are opting for the hardest of hard Brexits, reaching for the most painful implement in the box, and the scars and pain will be there for decades to come.

Turning to the negotiations, I will put my cards on the table when it comes to these tricky conversations. I will try to lay them down as delicately and sensitively as I can. Never before has an enterprise of such political significance been prosecuted with such delusional cluelessness, which is approaching a national embarrassment. It is hard to think of any major international negotiations being handled so ineptly and chaotically; it is almost as if we have put the clowns in charge of the Brexit circus and their huge clown footprints are all over all of this. We are becoming a national embarrassment with our negotiations, and this Government have to start to get real and drop their delusions. This repeal Bill is only throwing salt on the wounds.

What interests me more than anything else about this is what the Bill tells us about how Scotland is now perceived in this union of nations. Today, we celebrate 20 years of the vote that delivered the Scottish Parliament: 20 years of really taking back control—Members may wish to see it like that. This Bill presents the biggest challenge that our Parliament has ever had to confront, as it undermines the very foundation and ethos of the development of our national Parliament: if something is not listed in the reserved powers, it is devolved. That approach was designed elegantly by Donald Dewar as a means to determine and shape our national Parliament, and it has served us so well since then. This Bill drives a coach and horses through that. Indeed, it is worse than that, as the Law Society of Scotland tells us:

“The effect of the Bill would be to remove the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to any matter in retained EU law. This would be the case even if it related to areas of law not reserved to the UK under the Scotland Act, such as agriculture or fisheries.”

Then we must consider the Henry VIII power, an innovation so spectacular in its political audaciousness that one of Henry’s executioners would baulk at the whole experience. We have our own powers, which I refer to as the Robert the Bruce powers. We are actually compelled to exercise them as part of this Bill, even though we might have fundamental concerns in respect of democratic oversight. We are sailing towards the big Brexit iceberg, but Scotland has an opportunity. We can get down below decks, get on that lifeboat labelled “Scotland”, get out on to the ocean and row as quickly as we can to the shores of sanity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course there are limits, and the ultimate limit is that we have heard speeches from Government Members today, and a considerable number of people, not just on the Opposition Benches, have made it quite clear that they perceive dangers in this Bill and would not give the Government a free hand. If Ministers tried to overstep the promises made on the Floor of the House and the limits on the face of the Bill, we can be sure of one thing: it will probably not be Opposition Members who stop Ministers doing that but Government Members. That is the ultimate brake on Ministers who try to abuse the powers that are being given to them.

[Mr Francois]

Reference was made earlier to the Lisbon treaty and, like me, as he was in the House at the time, the hon. Gentleman will remember debating it night after night. There is a fundamental difference between that and the Bill, in that the Bill can be amended in Committee or on Report, whereas we could not change a single dot or comma of the Lisbon treaty.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course. That is the flaw in the argument of Opposition Members who have said that this Bill is flawed and therefore ought to be rejected tonight. If the Bill is flawed, the place to change it is here when it comes back for debate and amendment in Committee. That is the real test of whether people want an effective Bill, or no Bill because they do not want us to leave the EU in the first place.

Let us consider the impact of not having the powers in this Bill. First, we would now be gummed up for the next number of years in trying to get the legislation through. Secondly, there would be no certainty for businesses. I have heard people say here so many times, “We need certainty.” Well, the one way of having certainty is to transfer EU law into UK law so that there is a framework. Lastly, the Bill will enable Ministers, when they go out to negotiate our free trade deal with the rest of the EU, to ensure that we start from a basis of compliance and equivalence.