Brooks Newmark (Braintree, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 174, in clause 106, page 90, line 11, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 175, in clause 106, page 90, line 21, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

No. 177, in clause 110, page 91, line 30, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

No. 176, in clause 115, page 93, line 24, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Brooks Newmark (Braintree, Conservative)

Amendments Nos. 174 to 177, which on the face of it would replace the word “may” with “shall”, are probing amendments to establish how rigorous the approval of the supervisory authority will be, in effect. I am concerned that the word “may” appears many times in this chapter of part 5. The amendments in this group do not include all of them and an awful lot is to be left to regulations.

Approved debt management schemes and the registration of plans are positive in principle, but the detail of the approval mechanism and the rigour to be exercised by the scrutinising authority are a bit vague. That is compounded by the fact that the proposed supervising authority is the Lord Chancellor or his delegates rather than the Office of Fair Trading or the Financial Services Authority. The authority may approve schemes, but it does not have to do so. Regulations, on the other hand,

“may make provision about...conditions that must be met”

before approval. There is a conflict there: may they or must they?

That theme applies also to the registration of plans under clause 115, which states that regulations “may make provision” about either or both of the situations listed. If the need for regulation is anticipated, it should be declared openly. That is the purpose underlying the amendment—to replace some of the “mays” with “shalls”. I apologise to the Committee that I have not managed to identify them all, but I hope that I have managed to make my intentions clear to the Minister. Will she clarify what will and will not be done by the supervising authority, and what will or will not be prescribed in the forthcoming regulations?

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

I am not sure whether it is entirely clear what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

He wants some “shalls”.

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

He wants some “shalls”, I know that. He wants a lot of “shalls.” I wonder what the collective noun for “shalls” is—a shower of shalls? However by substituting “may” with “shall” in clause 106(1), for instance, which is what amendment No. 174 woulddo, we would end up with the requirement that the supervising authority shall approve one or more debt management schemes, irrespective of whether they are utterly hopeless and inappropriate. That would require the authority to approve one or more schemes but, in truth, it would probably require it to approve all debt management schemes put before it. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Member for Braintree wants.

Under our proposals, seeking approval to operate a scheme with the proposed enhanced powers would be optional. The hon. Gentleman knows that. There is no intention to force operators to offer enhanced schemes; they will have to decide whether they want to do so. There is no certainty about the number of applications for approval that will be received or how many will be  judged suitable and how many not. The intention is that the supervising authority will have the power to set conditions that must be met by all scheme operators, so a bedrock of conditions will be laid down. Those conditions will have to be satisfied before a scheme is approved.

Naturally, we intend to consult on the terms of the proposals, including the role of the supervising authority. There is no doubt that there will be a grounding of rules, and all scheme operators will be required to meet them. I expect the rules to be rigorous. Our intention is that schemes will be proper, helpful, well thought through and well worked out, and that they will work for the people who are taken on by them.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman moved on to amendment No. 177.

Brooks Newmark (Braintree, Conservative)

Did I do that by accident?

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

No, I thought that the amendments had been regrouped so that the hon. Gentleman could talk to amendment No. 177, but I am not sure whether he did. He might want to say more about it. I have done my best to address amendments Nos. 174 and 175.

Brooks Newmark (Braintree, Conservative)

I appreciate the Minister’s response. At this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr Bercow. It might help the Committee if I indicate that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central and I will be very happy if you wish to group some of the clauses that follow, except that we would like to say a word on clauses 113 and 124.

John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that is helpful. At this stage, I intend to proceed by taking the next four or five clauses individually.