Clause 72
Company Law Reform Bill [Lords]
1:30 pm
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.