Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 238ZH: 238ZH: Clause 199, page 138, line 5, leave out ““may in particular”” and insert ““shall”” The noble Baroness said: The three small amendments in this group have nothing in common except that they all relate to the same clause. None of them is particularly important, but I should like some clarification. Amendment No. 238ZH refers to new Section 78A(5), which states: "““Regulations made under subsection (4) may in particular””," and goes on with a list. I am querying the use of the words ““in particular””, which suggests some kind of emphasis. I am not clear about whether paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of new subsection (5) are in order of importance or are equal, but there are other regulations which may come forward emphasising different things. I return to the point I made before: given that we are talking about ethical standards, a quasi-legal process and possible suspension from office, we need to be clear about the parameters of the regulation. My second amendment relates to the five-year exclusion period. Being barred from office for the remainder of your term and then barred from standing again for a period of up to five years is a fairly heavy penalty. I invite the Minister to explain why five years has been chosen and what kind of behaviour one could have in mind that would be so heinous as to deprive a person of the right to stand for office for five years but would not be criminal or fall foul of something more serious. I am wracking my brains to think of an example. The third amendment—I am getting tetchy—relates to subsection (5)(c), which states: "““enable it to disqualify the person …for being””." I have always thought it should be ““from being””, and yet ““for being”” is written throughout the Bill. I am not sure whether there is a grammatical construct which applies only to legislation or whether it is just bad grammar. I beg to move.