Well, Presiding Officer, you’ll not be surprised that I’m entirely unconvinced by the Minister’s defence, really, of the Government’s obduracy, despite the very real concerns evidenced. One of the sources I quote is the Supreme Court.

Can I, however, thank her for entering into correspondence and at least telling us of the Government’s position? That was helpful. The movement on defining enforcement officers as having to be public authorities, I think that was useful. I welcome that as well. But, you know, ‘unnecessary and confusing’? So, if something already exists in law, you can never make a clear statement about it. If there’s an antecedence, no matter when—you know, PACE is from the 1980s, I think, originally—you can’t state it because you might confuse those who now read this new law, because of course they’ll be thumbing through legislation dotted about the statute books—some of it decades old. I mean, really, can this pass for serious objection to what I would hope would be a reasonable process of making law? I find it very depressing.

Then this business about public authorities is already captured and may be confused, but they already get captured under general obligations. Did you hear what I said about the Supreme Court judgment saying you cannot rely on that assumption, and that you have to develop in guidance clear understanding of specific actions that may infringe human rights? Like under this proposed Bill, enforcement powers resting with people in local authorities entering people’s homes, because we’re talking, usually, about fairly small practitioners who may be using their homes as part of their premises. I do have to say that I think we can expect a bit better than just a simple dismissal when we use an authority like the Supreme Court.

And then, PACE. Can I just—? I did anticipate that this may be used in a rather desperate form of defence by the Government: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its codes. What the Minister’s talking about mostly are codes for police officers, designed to illustrate how to respond in certain situations that police officers often find themselves in in the practice of their important duties. We’re talking about local authorities and people who work for them, who are designated enforcement officers. They’re not police officers. We cannot assume that they would have the detailed knowledge and training that police officers get in PACE, which was introduced originally because of poor and inconsistent practice, and, above all, the requirements in PACE are dotted all about it. There’s nothing in PACE that says how to act appropriately while enforcing obligations under a public health Bill or public health Act passed by the National Assembly. I do think it’s the task of the Government sometimes to really test and scrutinise its own advice that it’s getting from its advisers, and in this case I think you’ve fallen woefully short.