This is a technical amendment relating to cross-referencing. In clause 64(1), reference is made to exemption from using the name “limited” being granted under clauses 62 or 63. From my reading of the clause—I would be grateful if the Minister would correct me if this is not the case—it would seem that the operative clause is clause 61, as clauses 62 and 63 merely state conditions that are required to be met in order to satisfy clause 61. Accordingly, amendment No. 126 confirms that exemption is granted by virtue of clause 61(1)(c).
I think that we can all agree that the Bill should be as clear and accessible as possible. However, I do not think that the amendment adds to the clarity because the drafting makes the position reasonably clear. The restriction on changing the articles imposed by the clause applies to companies of the kinds described in clauses 62 and 63. I would venture to suggest that the existing wording makes it rather plainer than the suggested alternative. However, I am grateful that the issue has been raised as it meant that I read the sequencing again. I am satisfied that it is right as it is drafted.
I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. I think that she used the words “getting it nearly right”, or something along those lines. I apologise if I misquote her. I should like to get the clause as right as we possibly can. Although I hear what she said about being satisfied that it reflects the situation accurately, I ask her and her team to give it further thought. I would rather not press such an issue to a Division, but I should be grateful for some further reflection. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.