Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)

My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for his considered and certainly not reckless response to these various amendments—and also for promoting me. This morning when I appeared in court I was learned, but when I come here in the afternoon I am unlearned by convention—as opposed to my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, who is learned in both the High Court and the High Court of Parliament. I am very grateful for the Minister’s response. Of course, we will consider this further, and we will obviously engage with him further. This also gives me an opportunity to thank him for the engagement that he has given me and others so far. It seems to me that Clause 2(3)(a) and (b) both apply at the same time, so I am not sure why there is the distinction between “are or may be” and “is”. I respectfully agree with the reasoning of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if not her conclusion, that they really ought to be the same: they should both be either “is” or “are”, or “may be”. It is the dissonance between the two that is odd. On the points on recklessness and the tutorial that never came, noble Lords who come back for Report may have the tutorial at that stage, but it may be that, because of further discussions with the Minister, they do not. In the meantime, I seek the Committee’s leave to withdraw these amendments.