Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

clause 13, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (2).

This is a technical amendment, which, as the note on page 1 of the Bill states, was inserted by the Lords to ''avoid questions of privilege'', and which it is necessary to remove. The procedure is purely technical.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

The Minister has commented only briefly. Perhaps I am being particularly dim today, but I think that she is addressing Government amendment No. 7, which amends clause 13.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

There is only one Government amendment.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

The Minister is quite right, but she has not really explained the purpose of the amendment, and her intentions are not clear. I think that it touches on finance, which is important. [Interruption.]

I am sorry if the Minister finds this amusing—

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I do not find it amusing.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

This is important, particularly in the context of money. We have clarified one thing today: the finance for this Bill is extremely uncertain. We will definitely return to that issue. If the Minister can clarify things at this stage, she will save herself a lot of time later.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)

I was not smiling at the hon. Gentleman's remarks; he need not be so sensitive. I

trust that my explanation will give him a little more confidence.

This is a technical amendment concerning a matter of privilege. Their lordships do not have powers to make comments or resolutions about money, so they have to insert such a technical measure in order to be able to deal with the question of privilege. It is entirely normal for us to remove it having noted that what they say does not indicate anything financial. It is what their lordships are supposed to do to indicate that they have no powers to make financial provisions—just as they do not debate Finance Bills. That is all part of the same principle. They have recognised that principle by inserting subsection (2), and we have proposed a Government amendment to remove it. There is nothing particularly exciting about money here.

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is free to pursue this trail but, as I said in speaking to paragraph 19 of schedule 1, there are no interesting questions about funding. We envisage things carrying on as before. I have attempted to address his points and, to be fair, I think that I have answered them fully. I regret to inform him that there is nothing of any excitement in this respect.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Dr Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Public Services, Health & Education; Westbury, Conservative)

I do not want to labour the point, but it is important that members of the Committee, particularly Opposition Front Benchers, are clear about the Government's intentions. I am happy to admit to being extremely dim sometimes, and perhaps the fault lies with me, but I do not understand what subsection (2) is intended to achieve, or why Government amendment No. 7 is needed.

Mrs Irene Adams (Paisley North, Labour)

Order. It was a purely technical amendment about money; we cannot now have a debate on its substance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.