Member

I am heartened to see that, across the House, we all agree on the objective and thrust of this Bill, and the debate is about finely balanced and nuanced judgments. In the evidence sessions, we heard compelling evidence of the Bill’s necessity, and we heard arguments for the thresholds to be set more loosely. Most evidence suggested that they should be set more rigidly and more strictly, and I am pleased to see that the Government have attempted to draw a coherent distinction between the arguments that we heard.