Prosecution of Offences Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 7 March 1985)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On 28th February, when this Bill received its Third Reading and was passed, the usual privilege amendment was omitted. Such an amendment is necessary because of the financial implications of the Bill. The purpose of this Motion is to enable the error to be corrected by including the privilege amendment. I beg to move.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, this is an interesting example of the way in which our rules of procedure enable us to correct our errors, in however obscure a fashion.

§ Lord Simon of Glaisdale
My Lords, one cannot avoid noticing the item following on the Order Paper. If we agree to this Motion, I take it that we shall not have to go through all the matters that were dealt with on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. So far as I was concerned there were only two matters; one related to private prosecution (or, rather, to restrictions on private prosecutions) which I would not desire to go into again because the noble Lord the Minister wrote to me a letter which was entirely satisfactory.
However, also on that Motion I desired to pay a tribute to the noble Lord and to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the way the Bill had been conducted. I would very willingly repeat, as I am sure other noble Lords would, the tributes that were paid, but I hope that they can stand on the Hansard record of our previous proceedings.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I can reassure both noble and learned Lords that this is a relatively painless way of recovering mistakes, which we do not often make. While thanking the second noble and learned Lord for his kind remarks, may I assure him that they will remain in Hansard and not be vacated therefrom.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.