That is what it says in subsection (10).

However, we recognise that it will be important for the commissioner to be consulted by the Secretary of State before commissioning an investigation. Obviously,  the Secretary of State will want to hear whether the commissioner thinks that he can do something that suddenly comes up. We would not want to ask him to do something without being clear whether he can carry out the commission. That is why the provision makes reference to the commissioner being consulted by the Secretary of State. It is clear that the commissioner can determine the scope of and procedure to be applied in the investigation that he then undertakes. We believe that that will give an appropriate balance of powers and form the basis of a viable relationship between the Secretary of State and the commissioner for the purposes of the Clause.

The amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough would remove the duty on the commissioner to carry out an investigation requested under the clause. The result would be that the commissioner would, in effect, carry out the commissions by agreement and could, if minded to do so, refuse to carry out a particular investigation. I do not understand how that would have helped in respect of Yarl’s Wood, where an investigation was needed. The commissioner could just say, “Well, I am not going to do it.” Clearly, the commissioner has a great deal of independence, but the whole point of the powers under the clause is to give the Secretary of State the capacity to have an ad hoc, swift, independent but expert investigation into a matter that cannot perhaps be easily anticipated.