Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

We have not tabled an amendment to this clause, and nor has anyone else. I am minded—

Mr Greg Pope (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Hyndburn, Labour)

To keep it going.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) says, slightly ungraciously, that I am minded to keep it going. I am not and I shall prove that to him.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

I did not say a word.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if it was a case of mistaken identity. I thought that it was the hon. Gentleman because, as he knows, the Whip is supposed to sit silent and expressionless, and he failed to do so.

I understand that a notice can be served by delivery to the person suspected of an offence at his proper address, or by sending it to that address. Given that it is 2001 and the Cabinet Office is preoccupied with e-mail, the internet and modern devices which I have largely escaped and been immune to, I do not see why the Bill contains no provision for modern methods of transmission. I recognise that original documents must often be provided, but I am not clear why there should not be such a facility. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield is chuntering that there is such a facility.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I confess that I have sent e-mails to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to which I have never received replies. That is not because he is rude to me, but because he never checks his inbox. In this instance, he has not checked his inbox in relation to subsection (6), which deals with the issue.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right and I concede the point. I am reassured that there is such a provision and apologise for detaining the Committee.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I wish to ask a couple of questions, and to talk about subsection (6). Mention has been made of to where notices should be delivered, and registered offices are well understood in terms of the Companies Acts. The Minister will appreciate that it is some years since I left university.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Thirty, to wit.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

My hon. Friend says 30, in reference to a comment that I made last week. I realise that I did an injustice to myself, and it is less than 30 years. Clause 39(2)(c) and clause 39(3) refer to:

the principal office of the partnership

Clause 39(3) also refers to the principal office within the United Kingdom of an organisation that has a registered office outside the United Kingdom. Does ``principal office'' have a meaning in law? In other words, is it clearly defined elsewhere and, if so, where?

Subsection (6) deals with the electronic transmission of notices. I am not sure how familiar the Minister is with the use of e-mail.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

Very.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

He will know, then, that an e-mail does not always arrive at its destination. I believe that, normally, when a notice is served, it is sent by Royal Mail recorded delivery. One is thereby assured that a notice had been delivered to a premises. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.

Although I embrace electronic communication with enthusiasm and use it daily, I know that sometimes, not often, e-mails are not delivered. In the past, I have even asked for an electronic receipt. Sometimes, the e-mail goes to a server that automatically sends me a receipt, but the server has failed to deliver the e-mail to the addressee. The e-mail has simply sat on the server.

How can the Minister be sure that an e-mail notice is delivered? Does he agree that a great injustice could occur if someone is prosecuted for not acting in accordance with a notice served on them, if he or she never received the notice?

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I am a regular e-mail user and find it an effective means of communication. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman also uses e-mail. I know that his experience of running pirate radio stations when he was younger—I was told on Friday that he was an entrepreneur in his field—informs his questions.

The issue of the principal office is well defined in legislation, such as the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 or the Partnership Act 1890. This part of the Bill is drafted in accordance with current practice, including e-communication practice. No particular aspect of the Bill concerns the forms of communication involved.

A great deal of expertise exists on the development of e-Government. One question asked is, what is the legal standing of a signature sent electronically? The wording of the clause is in accordance with that practice. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's detailed point about confirming that an e-mail notice has been delivered. I accept that it is a point of substance and do not deride it in any way. I can only say that we are working in accordance with what is happening generally. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. I believe that the legislation that the clause addresses is consonant with other legislation in this area.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

My hon. Friend the Minister is right that the clause is consistent with other legislation. The parallel that the hon. Member for Lichfield drew between e-mail and the postal service is a fair observation, but one that can be answered. Even in the context of recorded delivery letters, one does not know that the person within the body corporate to whom the letter is addressed has signed for it; all that one knows is that a receipt has been received.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

That is very helpful. My hon. Friend has more expertise than me on these matters.

Subsection (6), to which the hon. Member for Lichfield referred, includes the phrase:

provided the text is received by that person in legible form.

If they do not receive it, a case for prosecution is unlikely to stack up. However, I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman raised a real issue about how communication between the state, private enterprise and individuals will be dealt with in the future. I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 39 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.