Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk and I learned over the weekend that the Government propose to drop clause 152 concerning the data-sharing provision on which we have spent a good deal of time in Committee. Indeed, it also took up time on Second Reading. Through you, I ask the Government to clarify their position in regard to clause 152. Such action is an extraordinary way in which to construct a Bill. It is in bad enough shape as it is without the Government adding yet more clauses, as they frequently do, and then pulling one out in the middle of Committee proceedings. My hon. Friend will try to catch your eye to deal with a parallel but not identical point. It is deeply confusing and reprehensible to construct legislation in this way.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. The Minister has made it clear in Committee that the Government would work with the Opposition to find a solution and that nothing would be said to anyone until such meetings had taken place. In The Sunday Telegraph last Sunday, under the headline, “Backlash forces U-turn on sharing private data”, it was reported that the Secretary of State “is to shelve proposals”, and that, according to a spokesman, he

“recognised that the clause was drafted in a way that was too wide, so it needed to be looked at again.”

Surely Ministers should not have been talking to the press before talking to Opposition spokesmen. If an announcement is to be made, it should be made not in the press but in this Committee. You are an upholder of Back-Bench rights and the rights of shadow spokesmen, Mr. Cook, so surely Ministers should be careful about what they do in such circumstances.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly. I am sure that the Government will have taken note of what he said and, given the opportunity, I am sure that they will respond.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. I accept that the Committee in its scrutiny is aware of the difficulties with clause 152. In fact, I have said in Committee that I want to see whether

“we can come up with a more streamlined version that takes into account the fact that Parliament has a role in scrutinising the decisions of Ministers”.——[Official Report, Coroners and Justice Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2009; c. 390.]

I also said:

“I acknowledge that the clause as drafted has the potential to be far wider than it is intended to be.”——[Official Report, Coroners and Justice Bill Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2009; c. 386.]

As a result of our scrutinising matters in Committee, we have decided to remove clause 152. I apologise to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that such details should have appeared in the press before they were brought to the attention of the Committee. However, I have followed the proper process and have asked Cabinet colleagues to withdraw the clause from the Bill so that we can have further consultation. I hope that we shall be able to look at how we can draft a more appropriate clause, not necessarily under the Bill, but at some further stage, so that we can put in place a proper data-sharing provision. I hope that I have clarified the position.