Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 238ZB: 238ZB: Clause 186, page 129, leave out lines 11 to 14 The noble Baroness said: My noble friend was referring to the kind of situation, which I call a ““God and Robert Browning”” moment, that occurred on a previous group of amendments a few days ago. There may be one or two more today on my part. Amendment No. 238ZB takes us to Clause 186 and new Section 57A, which will go into the 2000 Act. Like my noble friend, I question the clause. My amendment would take out the provision which would allow the Standards Board for England to issue guidance in connection with the new section on suspending a standards committee’s functions or guidance on any regulations or any direction under this section. It was probably a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the words ““Standards Board for England”” that had me alighting on that. It allows me to question the extent to which the Standards Board for England should have the power to suspend a standards committee’s functions. New Section 57D starts with the words: "““In such circumstances as may be prescribed””." Presumably that is the Secretary of State prescribing circumstances, and then the Standards Board for England can direct that the standards committee is disqualified. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give us some clues as to the circumstances in which that would function. I use ““function”” when we are talking about functions. Shall I go on waffling for a moment? I could read the clause out. This brings a number of new provisions into the 2000 Act. I can see, in some senses, how it is trying to localise arrangements. I repeat my concern about the Standards Board for England having any role. It occurs to me that I could move the amendment because my noble friend has an interest in this group and he can go on talking. I beg to move.