I thank the Minister for his characteristically sympathetic reply on my amendments. I found what he said very encouraging. I shall go away and study it in detail, but it seems to me that what he said meets the anxieties that I expressed. I just make the point—I think that I have already made it this afternoon—that sometimes the use of generic language can leave an area of doubt, and therefore some specificity in what is meant by a term can be helpful. I ask him to think about that. I know that there is a nice balance to be struck, because the argument the other way is that, if we start putting in the detail, something gets left out to which it should apply. I understand that point, but there is a happy medium. I am sure that my noble friend will carry out his undertaking to reflect positively on what has been said and see how far he can meet it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 46 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Review of child’s case before making certain alternative arrangements for accommodation]:
Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Children and Young Persons Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c523-4GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:30:17 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434949
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434949
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434949