I beg to move amendment No. 184, in schedule 14, page 214, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).
I shall be brief. This is a technical amendment to delete wording that is superfluous because its effect is achieved elsewhere in the schedule. In order to make the provision outlined in paragraph 1 consistent with the same provisions in schedules 16 and 17—in relation to the intervention powers of both the Law Society and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers—I have deleted paragraph 1(2)(b), because that is covered by paragraph 1(2)(c), which relates to insolvency. It is unnecessary to have both of them.
I appreciate that this is a technical matter. However, whether it is technical or substantive, it has to be right. I am concerned as to whether sub-paragraph (2)(b) is indeed superfluous. The reason for my concern stems from the definition of an insolvency event. For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), paragraph 1(3)(c) states:
“an administrative receiver within the meaning of section 251 of that Act is appointed.”
I am concerned about the mention of an administrative receiver. Such a receiver is used for a different type of insolvency event from what the normal receiver would deal with, as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b). Is the Minister confident that sub-paragraph (2)(b) is superfluous given that there is a distinction as set out in paragraph (3)?
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The phrase “a relevant insolvency event” covers the wider aspect to which he is referring. The important thing about this technical amendment is that it brings things into line with the Law Society’s powers that are set out in relation to recognised bodies as they are amended in paragraph 113 of schedule 16; I do not want to be absolutely quoted on that. The measures under that schedule make schedule 14 consistent with Law Society powers. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.