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

I beg to move amendment No. 155, in clause 140, page 109, line 12, at end add—

‘(8) The Lord Chancellor must consult any interested parties before making an order under this section.’.

Clause 140 follows on from clause 139, which talks about the protected function of the Lord Chancellor. I am interested in subsection (1), where it says:

“The Lord Chancellor (or, in relation to Chapter 3 of Part 5 only, the Secretary of State)”.

Perhaps the Bill knows something we do not and anticipates the fact that the Lord Chancellor may be an extinct species at some stage in the future. I thought that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State were one and the same person. It was in that light that we tabled the amendment.

Subsection (2) says:

“An order under this section may in particular”

and then gives details in paragraphs (a) and (b). Subsections (3) to (7) explain the orders in more depth. These are important orders. We feel that the Lord Chancellor should consult interested parties. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that consultation takes place. It might be obvious to the Minister and to   other members of the Committee that the consultation with interested parties would take place in any event, but why not say so in the Bill to add the extra discipline that we believe is needed?

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

The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State—it is the same person—to consult any interested parties before making orders under the clause. In fact, to return to the question of the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor, when I look more closely, I think that we are referring to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That is why there is what looks like a double reference, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, as I did not grasp the point. That is the answer to that problem.

The clause is a safety net that is intended to ensure that the Bill can be effectively implemented. It supplements the rest of the provisions and can be used only alongside one of those provisions, including specific order-making powers. As hon. Members are well aware, a detailed policy statement has been published. That explains how the order-making powers in the Bill would be used and sets out our commitment to extensive consultation when we use those powers.

Brooks Newmark (Braintree, Conservative)

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, but the Minister’s response has given me cause for concern. If she did not understand what was in the Bill, surely the public will not do so, so it would be appropriate to have some clarification on the point about the Secretary of State.

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

I have just given exactly that clarification. It is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Can I say more?

Brooks Newmark (Braintree, Conservative)

I appreciate that the Minister has verbally given that explanation. Perhaps I am a novice who needs these things explained, but given that the reference to the Secretary of State is ambiguous, notwithstanding that she has told us to whom it refers, should there not be a closer definition in the Bill? That is what I was asking.

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

We might change the name, but then we would be stuck with an inappropriate appellation in the Bill. The real point is that clause 103 introduces measures on behalf of the Insolvency Service, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The purpose of allowing both Secretaries of State the power is to cover that provision, but it is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is referred to in clause 140.

The detailed policy statement that we published sets out how the specific order-making powers, to which these are ancillary and supplementary, will be used. It says unambiguously, as I am now doing, that we will consult extensively when we use the order-making powers. The proposed amendment would require consultation for literally every consequential or transitional order made under clause 140. That could be hugely resource intensive and would not give much positive benefit, so we could not dream of agreeing to it. There are effective and proportionate safeguards in the clause to ensure that any order amending or repealing an Act has to be approved by both Houses.

I hope that that reassurance, and our unambiguous statement that we will consult where appropriate, as we have said in the policy document, are sufficient to persuade the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk not to press the amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall not press the amendment. May I ask her, however, to reflect again on subsection (1) and the words

“or, in relation to Chapter 3 of Part 5, only, the Secretary of State”?

We often talk about the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State in the context of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, because they are one and the same person. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree raises a good point, however, and we need clarification in the Bill, although I take on board the Minister’s point. We keep hearing that, should the current Chancellor of the Exchequer ever become Prime Minister, one of his first moves could be to scrap the DTI, so if we inserted a reference to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, it could be obsolete pretty quickly. Perhaps we should insert the words “the relevant Secretary of State”, however, which would immediately lead anyone reading the Bill to conclude that neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs were being referred to. Will the Minister therefore consider tabling an amendment on Report to insert the word “relevant” before “Secretary of State”?

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

I am grateful for the suggestion, although I think it is plain enough that, since we are talking only about chapter 3 of part 5 and the relevant Secretary of State is consequently the head of the Department of Trade and Industry, that is who we are talking about. I am helpfully prompted to survey, as I shall indeed do shortly, every clause in the Bill, as I am told that it always refers to the Lord Chancellor when we mean the Lord Chancellor, and never calls him the Secretary of State. However, I will double check that, so that the Opposition Members are satisfied.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.