I beg to move amendment No. 966, in

clause 271, page 149, leave out line 23.

The amendment seeks to change the commencement of the provisions in clause 248 and schedule 20 relating to the increasing penalties for drugs-related offences, a subject that has involved a great deal of debate within the Committee, from Royal Assent to a later date in accordance with a provision made by the Secretary of State. The interval is needed to ensure that the guidance needed to accompany the commencement of the provisions is in place. That partly answers a question that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised when we discussed those matters previously.

This is an interesting amendment. We, together with the hon. Members for Witney and for Beaconsfield and Labour Back Benchers, debated clause 248 at length and expressed considerable concern about it and about details that are developed in schedule 20. The fact that the amendment would remove that clause and schedule from the list in clause 271, and thus from immediate implementation, is therefore welcome. All that would be left in clause 271 would be the consequential provisions.

The implication of what the Minister said is not entirely clear. I should like to push him a little to tell us more about the Government's thinking. I do not want to rerun the debate; we can probably finish in time if we keep things short. Our concern is that the Government are being inconsistent. I think that hon. Members from both Opposition parties have said that it is unlikely that clause 248 and schedule 20 will survive in their present form, because of inconsistency. We all intend to reflect, after the Committee's proceedings are over, on how to achieve the consistency that, irrespective of our different starting positions in considering this matter, we think would be better.

We shall obviously agree to the amendment, so that clause 248 will not come into force straight away. What process and timetable do the Government anticipate then? How will that relate to the changing of classification, which must be brought about by order, as I understand it, to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? How does it relate to any other timetables concerning the police or Crown Prosecution Service and the guidance?

To answer the specific question that has just been asked, the amendment—which I am glad the hon. Gentleman welcomes—allows the Government to fit together three things: first, the coming into force of the provisions under the Bill; secondly, the effective date for reclassification, which is dealt with in another way; and thirdly, making sure that the guidance needed to make all that work is in place. It obviously makes sense to secure the flexibility to fit all three bits together at the same time.

Yes, but let me put one last direct question to the Minister. What is the earliest date at which the Government expect or intend any changes in the maximum penalties to come into force?

I do not mean to be flippant when I say that the honest answer is in due course. The Government do not have a date in mind.

Is not this making heavy weather of the fact that provision should never have been made for clause 248 to come into force on the passing of the Act? It had to be kept discrete, and that is what the amendment corrects.

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I am sure that the amendment will be passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 271, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.