I will, but you see the point. He was told to pay costs when a real court was dealing with this, and he is now appealing it. There was an article in yesterday's paper. He's arguing that while the letter of the law shows the Conservative Party to be right, he's arguing that Parliament had a different intent. That's apparently the case that his legal team is now presenting.
The point was to stop an abuse. That was the purpose. That is the link back, and that's part of what we do here. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. It's what we did then, and it's what I'm doing now. I would strongly urge members--and here I will bring my comments to a conclusion--to vote in favour of the amendment to the motion. If that is done, then I would urge members to vote in favour of the motion itself, and then we can look at this proposal, which may very well be a very good proposal. If it is, and I don't know this for a fact, but if it is identical to the one that was presented in the House at this meeting, then it actually struck me as being fairly unobjectionable. However, I object to the process by which our informal methods of respecting each other have been ignored and I would strongly encourage all of us to return to the practice of honouring in public the undertakings we take in private in order to facilitate the business of Parliament getting on in a businesslike manner.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.