I beg to move amendment No. 374, in

clause 86, page 43, line 10, leave out 'to have' and insert 'has'.

When I read the clause, I had difficulty in understanding what it meant. I concluded—not improperly, I hope—that it would read better if the words ''to have'' were removed and ''has'' was inserted. If the Under-Secretary thinks that it does

read better like that, he should accept the amendment: if he does not think so, I want him to explain why not.

This is the point during our considerations when we are all invited to put our faith in the parliamentary draftsmen. I understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment, but rather than clarify the provisions of clause 86, it could result in the clause being understood to mean that all the events listed in subsection (1) have to have occurred before an offender is required to renotify his details, and not that any of the events is to have occurred. It is the last of the events that will trigger the renotification requirements. The hon. Gentleman's good intentions would unfortunately result in an outcome that neither he nor any other Committee member would desire. Having made some rigorous inquiries about the amendment prior to today's discussion, I am assured that we need to keep the wording as it is.

May I read out subsection (1)? I have an alternative approach, but I am sure that I will be told that I am wrong. The subsection states:

''A relevant offender must notify to the police the information set out in section 84(5) within the period of one year after the last of the following events to have occurred'',

and then surely the Minister must have meant the Bill to say ''namely''. With great respect to the parliamentary draftsmen, I find ending the sentence with the words ''to have occurred'' followed by that list to be astonishingly ungrammatical. It is ungrammatical to the extent that I had some difficulty in understanding what it meant. I take the Minister's point that the use of the word ''has'' could create a separate problem. However, inserting the word ''namely'' would clarify the situation.

I support the hon. Gentleman's pursuit of good grammar, and I promise that we will consider his remarks.

If we accepted the hon. Gentleman's amendment the subsection could be taken to mean that all the events must have occurred. Not all of the events need to have occurred, and we want a situation where it is the last of them that has occurred that triggers notification. I hope that we are right—I feel that we are—and that the hon. Gentleman accepts my explanation. I shall reconsider the matter, and will write to him to confirm the outcome of those considerations.

I fully understand the Minister's criticism of the word ''has''. I did not intend to cause the mischief that the Minister has identified—the provision seemed to read much better when that word was included. As the subsection stands, it still reads badly. Perhaps somebody could sort that out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.