James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I beg to move amendmentNo. 61, in clause 72, page 30, line 33, leave out ‘may' and insert ‘shall'.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 62, in clause 72, page 31,line 13, at end insert—

‘(l) requiring the publication of all decisions by the adjudicator within 90 days of the decision being given.'.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I have two quick little points to make. The clause uses the word “may” in relation to the rules for adjudicators set down by the Secretary of State, and it would be better to give some definitive context by saying that they “shall” make provision for the relevant items in clause 72(2), as amendmentNo. 61 would do.

Amendment No. 62 raises a slightly different issue about the publication of the decisions of adjudicators. If we are to avoid problems arising, it is obviously as well to ensure that decisions are publicised so that people can understand them and avoid the need to get into such circumstances in the future, and to share best practice for all professional advisers. It would therefore be helpful to ensure that decisions are published to avoid the potential for future disputes. I appreciate that hardened individuals intent on extorting money will pay no regard to that, but it would be helpful to have transparency for the general commercial and corporate  sector. This is a probing amendment to seek to promote that idea, as such knowledge would be in the interests of all parties.

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has successfully promoted his amendment No. 62. It is clear that there should be a requirement for the adjudicators’ decisions to be published. One could argue that if they contain a point of law they will be reported anyway, but we agree with the proposal. If he withdraws the amendment, we will work out the best way of putting that together. The deadline might not be exactly as he has proposed, as it has to work out with other deadlines. If he is happy to withdraw the amendment, I shall undertake to consider it, as he makes a good point.

On including “shall” instead of “may”, the clause provides a power to make rules about proceedings before the adjudication and lists various matters that might be included in those rules. The Patent Office has advised on the issue because it has experience of operating similarly focused tribunals. Under the clause as drafted, a listed matter might be omitted and an unlisted matter might be included, so long as the clause says “may”. Alternatively, a matter could be left to be determined by the chief adjudicator. The point of putting “may” instead of “shall” is to give maximum flexibility, which is important because this is a new procedure and we want to make it as cost-effective as possible for users. Obviously, we will consult on the rules.

If the hon. Gentleman is content with that, I hope he will consider not pressing either amendment, given that he argued successfully on amendment No. 62.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I do not know what the process is whereby I can quit while I am ahead. I am grateful for what the Minister said about amendment No. 62. That would be extremely helpful. I do not intend to press amendment No. 61 to a vote. It is obviously a technical drafting amendment and I hear what the Minister said. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.