Perhaps I may correct the Minister on one matter—at least I hope I can do so—because my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has gone. She claimed that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell objected to the use of examples. What my noble friend was objecting to was much the same as that to which my noble friend Lady Anelay was objecting earlier; namely, the use of examples in the Bill.Clause 5 lists all the types of provision that may be made by order. That is an odd procedure to use in Bills. We have no objection whatever to examples being used by way of explanation by the Minister, because she is very good at that, and an example can often help explain exactly what she is getting at. On this occasion, she has done it rather well, becauseshe has persuaded me that the wording that the Government are proposing in Clause 26 is better than our wording. On this occasion, therefore, I shall withdraw my amendment, but I hope she will bear in mind what I said to her about what she said about my noble friend and the use of examples. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Powers to wind up companies etc: England and Wales]:
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c808 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:34:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385247
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385247
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385247