I hope that the lawyers are not paid by the word. They should be paid according to the number of words by which they can reduce a Bill. However, I fear that at some point someone, probably a lawyer, will ask why these issues are particularised. To that end, the Minister’s explanation is one about the word ““including””, not an explanation of the words ““in particular””. A problem may arise because those words are used elsewhere in the Bill. I was brought up to believe that a phrase should always mean the same thing and be used clearly and consistently throughout a text.
I am going to withdraw the amendment, but I fear that I am left with a certain curiosity that remains unsatisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Olympic Delivery Authority]:
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c67GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:59:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296480
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296480
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_296480