Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

We are now whizzing through the Bill at a fair old speed, and I hope that that is energy-efficient. Clause 3 sets out that the Green investment bank cannot amend the statement of objectives in its articles of association unless one of two things occurs. Under subsection (1)(b) the alteration may be undertaken by the Secretary of State, but subsection (1)(a) states that the objects cannot be altered unless

“the alteration is made to give effect to an order of a court or other authority having power to alter the Bank’s articles of association, or

(b) the making of the alteration has been approved by the Secretary of State by order under this section.”

I am intrigued by subsection (1)(a). Can the Minister give an example of what might constitute the courts or other relevant authority exercising such a power? Is there a precedent for that in other comparable organisations? Forgive my ignorance, which is general lack of knowledge, but can the Minister outline when that has happened? Will he also define and specify the other authorities as outlined in subsection (1)(a)? Again, it may be my reading of the legislation, which I am sure is my failing, given my advancing years, and I am sorry for taking up the Committee’s time, but I think it is time we slowed down somewhat, given our dizzying pace and progress. I am unclear about the precedent. As far as I can see, subsection (1)(a) has equal status with subsection (1)(b) as there is no relationship between the two subsections. They are linked not by the word “and”, for example, but by the word “or”.

Subsection (2) states that the order under this section cannot be made unless the

“the condition in subsection (3) is met.”

Subsection (3), in turn, states that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the objects of the Green investment bank remain consistent with the green purposes set out in clause 1. Is my understanding and reading of the legislation the correct interpretation? I am keen for the Minister to answer this direct question: what happens in the event of the Secretary of State not agreeing with the decision of the courts or other authority, as per subsection (1)(a)? In those circumstances, would the Secretary of State’s motion to Parliament via the statutory instrument recommend that both Houses disagree with the court or other authority? For my benefit, rather than for the benefit of the rest of the Committee, it would be helpful to understand the linkages and priorities contained in the clause. Therefore, if the Minister can provide further  clarity and possibly provide further examples, that would be very helpful to my understanding of the clause.

Clause 3, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, prohibits the GIB from altering

“its objects in its articles of association”,

subject to two exceptions, which are set out in subsections 1(a) and 1(b). Subsection 1(a) simply acknowledges that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be ousted. The hon. Gentleman asked for a particular example of that instance. It may well be that, perhaps on a technical matter, the court may find that the bank’s objects do not comply with community law. That is a possibility; it is a good example of that description.

Similarly the hon. Gentleman asked about the possible clash. The court’s decision could override the Secretary of State’s approval on the grounds of European law. That has supremacy, as we know; that is established, and it is the existing position.

The key exception is set out in subsection (1)(b), which gives the bank some flexibility to make changes to its statement of objects in the future, as long as they are

“approved by the Secretary of State”.

The order is subject to the consent of both Houses of Parliament. Without that subsection, the bank would never be able to propose changes to its current statement of objects. Therefore, the flexibility for the bank is carefully balanced with a need to ensure that its activities will not go beyond the green purposes set out in clause 1, which we discussed earlier.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of subsection (3), which ensures the Secretary of State’s approval of the bank’s proposed changes is conditional on the Secretary of State being satisfied that the terms of the clause, as amended, will ensure that the bank only engages in activities that

“contribute to the achievement of one or more of the green purposes” that are set out in clause 1. That means that even if the Government dispose of some or all of their shareholding in the bank, a future majority shareholder cannot approve a change to the bank’s statement of objects to allow it to invest in activities that are not green.

We consider that it is vital that the UK Green investment bank always remains a green institution. Clearly it would be contrary to the coalition commitment and to the principle that we have established that the Green investment bank might one day deviate from that green mandate; I think that we have touched on that issue in earlier debates.

On that basis, I am happy to commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.