Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry), Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 15, page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (3).

I shall be brief. Why is it necessary for the certificate to be signed by the registrar? On the back of the previous debate, the Minister might say that it is for security purposes. However, proof is publication on the Companies House register. In practice, companies often lose their certificates, it is difficult to get replacements and there is a cost involved in doing so. What is the Minister’s view?

On a slightly wider issue, will the certificate be in the same paper format as now, or will there be a possibility of issuing it online?

It is a practical point, because at present a same-day incorporation requires a trip to Companies House, with all the hurdles that that entails, whereas it would be quicker to do it online. Harking back to the previous debate, I am aware that there are security implications, and I shall be grateful if the Minister will advise us on how they might be addressed.

Margaret Hodge (Minister of State (Industry and the Regions), Department of Trade and Industry; Barking, Labour)

I shall deal with the security implications before the issue of signing of certificates by the registrar. There are increasing requirements,not least in European Union directives, that communication take place electronically, so we would probably have to adopt the practice anyway. Ensuring security therefore becomes a major issue, and that is at the top of the agenda of all the companies that are involved in such business. I see lots of documents on advances in the area—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman does too. A week or two ago I attended a Council meeting at which, in light of our particular responsibility for information and communications technology, the Council of Ministers discussed it as the next major area of work. We shall see whether that leads to further measures or directives at the European level, which is probably the sensible level at which to take such action.

As to online issuing of certificates, in principle we do not have any objection, although we shall have to consider the practicalities. The certificate can be signed online, so I do not see why on earth it should not be issued online. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to take that idea away, we shall reflect on it, as it is obviously sensible. As to the presence of the provision in the Bill, I am told that everybody wants conclusive evidence to the whole world that a company has been duly and properly formed and can be relied on by third parties who want to know that they are dealing with a properly established company—I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that. It is now much simpler to get such authentications: I am told that it is now possible for the registrar to sign documents electronically and, indeed, her official seal can now be applied electronically.

On the Bill’s provisions concerning duties and functions of the registrar, clause 768(2) provides that her rules may make provision on how a signature or seal is to be authenticated in such circumstances. That requirement is not overtaken by other provisions of the Bill that enable the registrar to specify matters relating to the authentication of certain documents. The new provisions in part 29 deal primarily with the  authentication of documents that are sent to the registrar, whereas the clause deals with a document that is sent by her. That is why the provision appears where it does.

The argument that is made is that the clause is useful and necessary. In that spirit, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry), Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for her helpful response, her agreement to look into the matter further, and her recognition of the important security implications of electronic communication. I am pleased that the Government will address the issue and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.