Interpretation

Part of Clause 16 – in the House of Commons at 11:15 pm on 30 April 1986.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David Clelland David Clelland , Tyne Bridge 11:15, 30 April 1986

I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 11, line 31, leave out '3' and insert '20'.

In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) argued, strongly and with his usual eloquence, that three was far too small a figure to define an assembly for the purposes of the Bill. The Minister said that he agreed that the base should be shifted upwards. He said: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's arguments with care and I shall consult further on the matter. I accept that, if a number can be found that is sensible in terms both of policing and of definition for the kind of offences that we are discussing, that number should be in the clause. I have accepted the principle and indicated at least that my starter is for 10."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 13 March 1986; c. 789.] As no Government amendment to increase the number has been tabled and as the Minister has said that he accepts the principle that the number should be increased, I am left with the assumption that he looks favourably on the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Therefore, I shall waste no more time but shall await the Minister's favourable response.