I'm glad you raised the point.
If we were going to split the motion, I would suggest points one, two, and four could be in the first part. And point three in this proposed motion would be the second part; it would begin with the preamble in the motion as it was circulated. In other words, we go with the amended preamble for points one, two, and four, and the second motion, la deuxième partie, would be the existing preamble plus point three.
I say that principally because I don't see any difficulty with the points and including the changes that Madam Neville has suggested; these would be things we could probably support. Having said that, point three is objectionable, from our point of view.