Commons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 191:"Page 19, line 8, leave out subsection (4)." The noble Baroness said: I could not intervene before the Minister’s amendment was formally moved. I need to come back on it because it put me in a difficult position. I want also to clarify whether we are now discussing the clause-stand-part Question because it is getting difficult to understand where we are. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to my Amendment No. 191 and then deal with the clause-stand-part Question. As we have rolled things into one, it is a little confusing. As regards Amendment No. 191, I am not as satisfied as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was. Perhaps I am getting tetchy in my old age. I thank the Minister for explaining the safeguards that the Government believe are included. In responding to my amendment, he said that there would be a local analysis before any conflict was resolved. When will that click in? He then went on to talk to the clause-stand-part Question, which is where I got into great difficulty, and he spoke of substantial support. I shall try to stick clearly to my amendment. Whatever else is said in the whole of Clause 34, I do not think I am being frivolous in saying that subsections (1) to (3) become unnecessary because subsection (4) is a catch-all and end-all provision. The Government have written in:"““The power under subsection (1) includes power to amend or repeal any enactment””." I get very lost as to exactly where we stand. While the Minister has tried to come back to me on this, it is an overwhelming power—