Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I do not want to reiterate any of the arguments so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). We have put a strong proposition before the House and it needs an appropriate response from the Minister. If that ministerial response is insufficiently strong, I hope that my hon. Friend will push the matter to a vote. However, we are also dealing with clause 24 stand part, and in that context I want briefly to touch on two points, both of which depend on the opinion of the Minister. This issue was raised earlier, but I am not clear under what circumstances the Minister might be of the opinion that his view should take precedence over that of the House of Commons. That is what is implied by clause 24(4)(a), which sets out a mechanism—there must be a reason for this mechanism being there—by which a Minister can simply say, "The House of Commons has voted against this treaty, but we still believe we ought to go ahead." Nothing could be a clearer indication of the shallowness of the provision before us if it would be possible for a Government to put a matter before the House of Commons, be defeated and still proceed. I know that there is a certain precedent for that—when referendums go the wrong way, they tend to be repeated until the "right" answer eventually emerges—but that should not be built into the proposal before us. I should like the Minister to explain why he believes that provision to be a necessary part of the clause and under what circumstances he believes it would be appropriate to use that mechanism.