division_name: Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords] &#8212; [3rd Allotted Day] &#8212; New Clause 9 &#8212; Disqualification from holding further ministerial office
motion: <p class="" pid="a.914.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.914.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">The Bill's Second Reading has been debated on the Floor of the House, followed by three full days in Committee on the Floor of the House. That process was agreed through the usual channels following discussion about there being insufficient time. We have had an interesting and long discussion in Committee, but even so a number of amendments, new clauses and schedules were adopted that we did not have time to discuss. Of course, that is always a matter of regret, but I pay tribute to <phrase class="honfriend" id="uk.org.publicwhip/member/744" name="Peter Bottomley">the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley)</phrase>, who leapt to my defence&#8212;that was unsurprising; nevertheless, I shall remember it&#8212;to point out that many amendments were consequential and drafting amendments that simply replaced the word "Minister" with the phrase "Lord Chancellor." Of course, that was not the Government's original intention; rather, it was a reflection of the debate and of having listened to concerns expressed here and in the other place. It was unfortunate that we had to go through such amendments one after the other, but they did constitute the bulk of those tabled.</p>
  
  <p pid="a.922.1/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put,</i> That the Bill be now read the Third time:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.922.1/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 280, Noes 118.</p>