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?