I remind the Committee that in the event of a Division in the Chamber, which I am told is distinctly probable, I will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes to allow Members to vote. I also advise the Committee that in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. The Motion to approve the statutory instrument will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Probate Services (Approved Bodies) Order 2008.

The noble Lord said: This order is presented under Section 55 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. It will enable the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers to become approved bodies which can authorise their members to provide probate services for a fee, gain or reward. By probate services, I mean the preparation of any papers on which to found or oppose a grant of probate or a grant of letters of administration.

At the moment, Section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974 restricts the provision of probate services for a fee, gain or reward to specified legal practitioners; namely, solicitors, barristers and notaries. However, Section 55 of the Courts and Legal Services Act provides an exception for members of an approved body. The ICAS and the CLC are the first applicants seeking to provide probate services under the Courts and Legal Services Act approval mechanism since the provision was commenced in December 2004.

The applications have passed through the required statutory approval procedure set out in Schedule 9 to the Courts and Legal Services Act. In doing so, they have been considered and approved by the legal services consultative panel and the president of the Family Division and, as a result, have our full support.

Briefly, the ICAS is a professional body of accountants which received its royal charter in 1854 and has more than 17,000 individual members and 200 member firms. Members are required to meet the academic and post-qualification requirements of the ICAS before being eligible for membership and obtaining accountancy-practising certificates. Its members routinely have long-standing relationships with clients, giving them tax and financial planning advice. Under the terms of the application, probate practising rights will be granted only to members who currently hold practising certificates in accountancy and who wish to provide probate services in England and Wales only.

Before members of the ICAS are granted practising rights, they will need to show that they can satisfy the requirements set out in Section 55 if they wish to provide probate services. These include being suitably trained and ensuring that their employees are suitably trained, including meeting the continuing professional development requirements set by the ICAS; having satisfactory insurance and compensation arrangements in place to cover adequately the risk of any claim made against them and to protect the client in the event of them ceasing to provide probate services; and having a complaints scheme in place, including a route of appeal to the Legal Services Ombudsman.

As with members of the ICAS, members of the CLC will need to demonstrate they have the similar arrangements in place before being granted probate rights. The CLC was established in 1987 by the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to regulate licensed conveyancers in the provision of conveyancing services. It currently has around 1,043 licence holders and 42 recognised bodies. Members are required to have undertaken the qualification and practical training requirements set by the CLC before being granted a licence to practise. Only those members who hold licences will be eligible to apply for a probate-practising certificate.

In order to meet the full requirements set out in Section 55 of the Courts and Legal Services Act, the CLC requested approval to extend its existing compensation fund to cover probate matters. An order to this effect came into force earlier this year. This will ensure that clients of licensed conveyancers will be protected against fraud, negligence or dishonesty on the part of the licensed conveyancer. Consumer protection is something that both the ICAS and the CLC have demonstrated they take seriously in their applications. As established professional bodies in their fields of expertise, they already have in place effective systems of monitoring and enforcement. They have made sure that they and their members have, or will have, in place suitable arrangements for the provision of probate services.

The potential benefits to the consumer of these bodies being approved include: more choice of provider; more competitive prices; and, in the case of organisations such as the ICAS which have an existing customer base, the opportunity to provide them with a more cost-effective and efficient service. This is precisely what Section 55 is intended to do and is in keeping with the principle, which is central to our policy, of providing new or better ways of providing legal services and a wider choice of persons providing them at more competitive prices. If consumers are unhappy about the way in which the ICAS or the CLC has dealt with a complaint about one of its members providing probate services, they can refer the case to the Legal Services Ombudsman. The ombudsman’s jurisdiction was extended to cover bodies authorised under Section 55 in October 2004, shortly before the Section 55 provisions were commenced. She has been approached by both organisations and has agreed to accept complaints from both bodies relating to the probate services provided by their members. It is not anticipated that the LSO will receive a high number of additional complaints per year if this order is approved.

In the longer term, complaints about these two bodies’ members will be dealt with by the new Office of Legal Complaints in line with complaints about members of other legal professional bodies. If this order is approved, a subsequent order will need to be laid. This will amend the Legal Services Act to bring both bodies under the jurisdiction of the Legal Services Board and ensure that they retain their probate rights in the future regulatory regime. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Probate Services (Approved Bodies) Order 2008. 22nd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bach.)

I thank the noble Lord for explaining the order. I do not think that it is controversial and I suspect that we can happily agree to it. However, I have a couple of short questions. The first concerns consultation. The order states:

“The Secretary of State has considered the advice given to him by the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the President of the Family Division”.

Who else was consulted? What is the process of consultation on these matters?

I ask my second question with some embarrassment. Why is the affirmative procedure being used? I notice that the order is being passed under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which was enacted when my party was in government. I believe that the noble Lord referred to a slightly later Act, which may have consolidated the earlier Act. It seems to me that some of the affirmative orders which come before us might be better dealt with by the negative resolution procedure. I am not clear why we need to deal with this order by the affirmative procedure, but no doubt the Minister will explain.

I have reservations about this order. Probate is a difficult and challenging area of the law. It can be successful if it is simple, but it can lead to long delays, particularly if it involves the administration of trusts under a will or matters of that sort. It is a much more complicated area than conveyancing, and indeed quite a long way removed from accountancy. It is right, therefore, that the Government should have made necessary inquiries before bringing this order forward. What is not apparent is, for example, the track record of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers. Have there been complaints, and has its compensation fund been used in relation to conveyancing?

Another matter to which I draw the Committee’s attention is that the Legal Services Consultative Panel did not immediately give a clean bill of health to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers and thought it desirable that it should have a separate fund to deal with compensation for probate matters as opposed to the existing conveyancing fund. However, since that recommendation was made, the Government have for some reason agreed, and by order enacted, that the existing conveyancing compensation scheme should be extended to cover the new area of responsibility. If the organisation’s record—nothing in the Legal Services Consultative Panel’s advice makes it clear—is that there have been few complaints and no significant attacks on the compensation fund, then well and good. However, I should like to know the position.

The other matter that causes me some disquiet is why the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland should be seeking powers to deal with probate in England and Wales. There are quite different and separate jurisdictions in Scotland and Wales, and the area of the law covering probate and trust is quite different in Scotland from the system in England and Wales. As I said, accountants are fairly well removed from this area anyway, so why do they want to extend their business into England and Wales? What training will they have in these aspects of English and Welsh law which will be satisfactory?

In the long term, all may prove to be fine. On behalf of my party, however, I wish to put down a marker that these extensions of business should not be accepted without the most rigorous consideration of the standing and record of the one fairly new organisation, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, and the longstanding record of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland whose members are coming across the border to take the business of practitioners in England and Wales without, so far as I can see, any reason appearing on the papers which have been put before us.

I voice these reservations in the hope that if the Minister cannot respond to them today, he will be able to do so before this draft statutory instrument is brought before the whole Chamber and its implementation is sought.

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their responses. I shall deal first with the question of why this is an affirmative resolution, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, give the answer to that. It is always an important step when the law is changed to enable bodies to take part in legal practice when they have not been able to do so before. There are always a number of doubts and concerns surrounding such a change and it is important that Parliament should have the right to deal with orders that make such changes in a positive, affirmative way. I hope I do not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Henley, too much if I commend his Government for having made these orders affirmative; it would have been a subject of potential criticism if they had been merely negative orders.

The obligation is that consultation must be with the two bodies I have mentioned. The statutory approval process means that the Secretary of State has to seek the advice of the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the president of the Family Division, but no one else is consulted in the process. That is for these particular applications, but, before Section 55 itself was commenced, I am advised that a full consultation took place. I hope that deals with the queries that the noble Lord rightly raised.

I take on board the doubts that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has expressed. I want to reassure him as best I can that, given the status of the LSCP and of the president of the division, all the matters he was concerned about have been taken fully into account. Indeed, so far as the conveyancers were concerned, he is right that there was initial concern over the lack of compensation arrangements, and the LSCP recommended that that application should be approved only if adequate compensation arrangements were put in place. It further recommended that the Secretary of State give consideration to legislation to amend the Administration of Justice Act to allow the CLC to extend its existing compensation fund to cover probate work.

The endorsement from the president of the Family Division for that recommendation was received in February 2008, and ministerial agreement was given in the same month. In March the Courts and Legal Service Act 1990 (Modification of Power to Make Rules about Licensed Conveyancers) Order 2008 was laid. The order gave the power to the CLC to extend its existing compensation funds to cover probate work. That has allowed that body to make rules about paying compensation to people who had suffered loss, as I told the Committee a moment or two ago, as a result of negligence, fraud or dishonesty. The system, if I may say so, seems to work. The body that, by statute, has to be consulted on this made a recommendation. That recommendation was taken on board by the Government, and has now been put into force. There is confidence all round that that is a suitable body to get this right.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked the obvious question—although I do not mean “obvious” in any derogatory sense—about why an organisation with “Scotland” in its title should want to do this work and why it should be entitled to. The name may be slightly misleading in that, as I understand it, a number of members of that body already do considerable work in England, even though the name of the organisation has “Scotland” in it. That is true also for banks whose names include the word “Scotland” but that have an important function in England too.

The noble Lord may come back to me and say, “Well, the Scottish legal system is rather different from the English legal system but that may not be so true about the banking system”. The fact remains, however, that some ICAS members already work in England as accountants. The ICAS plans to provide training, which is what the noble Lord was concerned about, through a variety of methods, including compulsory training courses at its examination centres and using solicitors who practise in England and Wales to assist with courses. The ICAS has also approached the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners about the possibility of members attending STEP training courses and, if that application is successful, would enter into a formal agreement.

I mention those factors because the Government are satisfied that both bodies are eminently suitable for the work that they have applied to take on. While the noble Lord is of course right to express doubts, and while this is an important step, we are satisfied, as are the consultative bodies and the president, that this is a good move which will pay off.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 2008.

The noble Lord said: The purpose of these regulations is to introduce a new fee payable by persons who are authorised to be supplied with copies of the marked registers of electors.

A Division has been called in the Chamber. I was hoping that we would get the timing absolutely spot-on but we just missed it. The Committee stands adjourned until 4.17 pm, or that much sooner if all interested parties are back.

[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.07 pm until 4.13 pm.]

The purpose of the regulations is to introduce a new fee payable by persons who are authorised to be supplied with copies of the marked registers of electors, lists of postal voters, proxy voters and proxy postal voters that are produced at elections.

At an election, when a ballot paper is issued to an elector in a polling station a mark is made against the name of the elector in the electoral register to indicate that the elector has received a ballot paper and therefore we can assume has voted at the election. This is the marked register of electors. The list of persons who have appointed a proxy to vote on their behalf is marked in the same way when a ballot is issued in the polling station to a person voting as a proxy. Further, under changes made by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, the lists of postal voters and proxy postal voters are also marked to show which voters have returned their postal votes.

Copies of the marked registers and other lists may be supplied after the election to certain authorised persons, including candidates and political parties, who may use the registers and lists for electoral purposes. The political parties, elected representatives and candidates attach great importance to the marked electoral register for campaigning purposes and for maximising turn-out at elections. Access to these records allows them to see the extent to which electors voted, if their known supporters voted and to gauge the effectiveness of their campaigning. The Government feel strongly that marked registers serve a useful purpose in the democratic process and that we should not hinder access to them by persons who have a legitimate interest in the information contained within them.

We are again grateful to the Minister for giving his explanation of the instrument. As he said, the regulations speak for themselves. They deal largely with the fees for the marked registers which those of us involved in the political process regard as a useful tool—I think that everyone here has been involved electorally in one way or another, helping out in elections. The order deals purely with fees. I shall not discuss those but simply use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he can answer one or two important questions on electoral fraud that have come up before in the House.

There have, as we know, been problems with the register, especially with individual registration, or lack of individual registration. We have had promises from the Government that they will at some stage bring forward individual registration, which would certainly deal with many of the fraud problems experienced at the moment and which certain judges in certain cases have highlighted. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know where the Government are on that matter and when they hope to bring forward further primary or secondary legislation that might bring forward individual registration to deal with that problem. Having said that, we have no intention of opposing the regulations—which, as I said, relate merely to the fees levied for the marked registers.

As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, we all have experience of electoral registers and, indeed, of disposing of skips full of electoral registers. I am not sure whether the Minister was present at the ceremonial burning of the electoral registers following the Henley by-election.

The regulations have one very interesting feature. In previous legislation, in 2007, the fee for registers was £20 in data form and £10 in printed form. We seem to have reversed that. It is now £2 in printed form and £1 in data form. The data form is far more useful and I suspect that the printed forms will disappear. It is a curious anomaly which the Minister might like to explain.

I am grateful to both noble Lords for what I take is their support for these regulations. I agree that when one first looks at this, it is a slight anomaly. Indeed, I asked the same question earlier today. As I understand it, there was a charge of £20 for a data copy and £10 for a paper one as an administration fee under the 2007 arrangement. For paper, £5 was charged for each complete, or part of, 1,000 entries, which is now £2; while £1.50 was charged for each complete, or part of, 1,000 entries in electronic format, which is now £1. These conclusions have been reached as the result of a widespread consultation and represent a fair way of making sure that local authorities do not lose out while at the same time ensuring that it is not too expensive for those who are entitled to marked registers.

We are already committed to the principle of individual registration, but it is a far-reaching reform and needs to be undertaken with great care so that any new system is robust and actually tackles the problem of under-registration. Any move would require careful preparation. Unlike in Northern Ireland where there was a perception of over-registration, in Great Britain the problem is frankly one of under-registration, so we think that a rapid and unplanned move to individual registration would make the problem worse, not better. We support the principle, but it has not been determined how it could be implemented without causing significant numbers of eligible people to fall off the register. We wish to explore the issues involved with key stakeholders.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2008.

The noble Lord said: My honourable friend in another place, the Minister Bridget Prentice, opened this order by saying that it had received no objections and had met with approval by most of those on whom it would have an effect, and drew the attention of honourable Members to the Explanatory Memorandum saying that she would be happy to take questions on it. I feel that I might be trespassing on the good nature of the Grand Committee if I were to go into much more detail, but I must say that it is a real pleasure that the former Member for one of the constituencies involved in what is by anyone’s standards a fairly minor change is present today, and I wonder whether he wants to add anything to what I have said. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2008. 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bach.)

As the Minister has said, I have a declared interest in that I was the former Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, in which that community exists. Neither I nor my successor in the other place, Roger Williams, have any objection to the order. We have a very large constituency in Brecon and Radnorshire; in fact it is the largest constituency by geographical area in England and Wales, and about the fourth largest in Great Britain. This part is in the far south-west corner of the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency; it is an old mining community. As is typical of the valleys of south Wales, the communities there follow one after another up the valley.

On 1 April 2005, there was a boundary change for the local authorities. In that boundary change, part of Cwmtwrch was transferred from Ystalyfera, which is in the Swansea Valley, to Ystradgynlais, which is part of the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency. That was altered by the Neath Port Talbot and Powys (Cwmtwrch) Order 2004.

I will not digress too far, except to explain that there are two Cwmtwrchs. There is a famous story in Wales of an Indian restaurateur who went back to India and was discussing where he came from. He said to his old friend, “I live in Cwmtwrch”. His friend said, “Upper or lower?” That is a classic story in both Welsh and English in Wales. The result of the order is that the whole of the land on one side of the Twrch Valley would be transferred into Powys. Logic follows that the statutory instrument before us today changes the electoral boundaries, which will now be contiguous with the local authority boundaries. That is widely welcomed in the valley because it is a valley community and a Welsh-speaking community at that. It is a very warm and friendly place, especially in Cwmtwrch, whether Upper or Lower.

The river Twrch, which runs into the Tawe—which, if you translate it from the Welsh, means that it is a wild boar—comes right off the Carmarthenshire Black Mountain. In other words, it races down the valley in a flood and turmoil, a bit like a pig ferreting around in a field; there are masses of round boulders in the river and you cannot walk across it in the flood; you would not survive. The inhabitants can on occasion hear the roar of the river and one living in that excellent community with his wife is none other than Clive Rowlands, the Welsh rugby captain, who was known as “Top Cat” and was the coach of the British Lions. There is a very good rugby club in Cwmtwrch; you get a warm welcome there if you go.

It is that kind of place and those kind of people. The other remarkable thing that is a prime example to the population of the rest of the entire United Kingdom is that, in my experience, on two or three occasions, 95 per cent of the electorate there came out to vote at the general election. I wish that that were the case in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I do not think that I can follow that; the noble Lord has introduced the regulation much better than I could.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the European Parliament (Number of MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2008.

The noble Lord said: The order relates to the European parliamentary elections to be held in the United Kingdom in June 2009, and forms an important part of the Government’s preparations for these elections. Its purpose is to provide for the reduction in the number of United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament from 78 to 72 as a result of the accession of two new states, Bulgaria and Romania, to the European Union. The order also sets out how the new number of MEPs is to be divided between the electoral regions in the UK. The new number of MEPs, as distributed by the order, will apply to the elections that are to be held in 2009.

I shall go as briefly as I can into some of the background to why this order is necessary. The treaty of Luxembourg, which entered into force on 1 January 2007, provides for the accession of Romania and the Republic of Bulgaria to the EU, resulting in an enlarged European Union of 27 states. It was agreed after negotiations, in which we played a full part, that the European Parliament would have a maximum number of 736 MEPs and that the number of MEPs allocated to the existing member states would be reduced to accommodate the new accession states.

The treaty of Luxembourg gives effect to the intent of the treaty of Nice that 12 new states would join the European Union, resulting in an expanded union. Ten of the 12 candidate states joined by virtue of the Athens treaty, which entered into force on 1 May 2004. The Luxembourg treaty provides for the accession of the remaining two.

The Government fully support the enlargement of the EU, but I am sure noble Lords will agree that it makes sense to put a limit on the total number of MEPs elected by EU states so that the European Parliament does not become too unwieldy. A necessary consequence of that is that the number of MEPs elected by existing member states, including us, needs to be reduced in order to accommodate the new member states. Parliament has given its approval to the Luxembourg treaty. The order implements the revised allocation of 72 UK MEPs provided for in that treaty.

As I have explained, the UK currently has 78 MEPs. Under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, for the purposes of elections to the European Parliament the UK is divided up into 12 electoral regions. England is divided up into nine, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each constitute a single electoral region. The 2002 Act specifies how many MEPs each region has.

The European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 provides a mechanism for implementing any change under community law in the total number of MEPs to be elected for the United Kingdom. Where there is such a change, the Secretary of State for Justice will ask the independent Electoral Commission to make a recommendation to him about how the new number of UK MEPs should be distributed between electoral regions. The 2003 Act specifies that in making a recommendation, the Electoral Commission must ensure that each electoral region is allocated at least three MEPs, and the ratio of electors to MEPs is, as nearly as possible, the same in each electoral region. The Act provides that the recommendation made by the Electoral Commission must be reflected in the order that implements the change. There is no discretion to reject or modify the recommendation.

In January last year, the Secretary of State asked the Electoral Commission to make such a recommendation in respect of our reduced number of seats. The Electoral Commission made its recommendation at the end of July 2007 and, in accordance with the 2003 Act, the commission’s recommendation was laid before Parliament in November 2007. The method used by the commission, the Sainte-Laguë method, was fully explained in its report, and I need not go into details here. However, the method was supported by a number of expert sources such as the Royal Statistical Society and the Office for National Statistics. The recommendation was that in six electoral regions—eastern, north-east, south-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, Wales and Northern Ireland—the number of seats remained unchanged, while the other six regions all lost a single seat.

I do not think that I need to go through the details, unless of course I am asked to do so. I remind noble Lords that the order applies to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, because Gibraltar was enfranchised for the purposes of European parliamentary elections from June 2004 and has been combined with the south-west region to form a new electoral region for the European parliamentary elections.

We have consulted the Electoral Commission on the order and it has given its support. The commission has made a fair and reasonable recommendation as to how the new number of MEPs should be distributed across the electoral regions in accordance with the 2003 Act.

The order is necessary for the effective running of the European parliamentary elections to be held in June 2009. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the European Parliament (Number of MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2008. 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bach.)

I thank the Minister for introducing the order. I had not come across what he referred to as “Sainte-Laguë”, if I have my pronunciation right, but I will be coming back to d’Hondt, which he will remember, in due course.

I have two questions. First, obviously if the number of our MEPs is reduced from 78 to 72 as a result of the accession of the two countries mentioned by the noble Lord, that is fair enough and we have to make adjustments. Will the Minister give the figures on how many people each of the MEPs will now represent and what equality there is? For example, we now have three representing Northern Ireland, of which the population is X, and 10 representing the south-east, of which the population is Y. Will he tell the Committee what the variation is between the different regions in terms of how many people each of the MEPs will represent and what the level of fairness will be?

My second question relates to d’Hondt. I do this in memory of my late friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who taught us all we know about d’Hondt and the bogus, undemocratic, closed-list system that d’Hondt then worked on for electing our MEPs, which none of us were happy with.

D’Hondt works in a curious way and, I suspect, works better in larger constituencies. In the old days, the smallest constituency had four MEPs, but now it is down to two; the north-east now has three, as does Northern Ireland. Does d’Hondt still work as effectively—if it ever did work effectively—when you are down to a constituency that has only three MEPs, or would it be better if we thought of some other system? The Minister probably would not like to go back to the debates we had on closed lists, open lists, d’Hondt and so on, but I would welcome his comments on the matter at this stage.

We are grateful that Wales retains four seats but we feel that we are not properly covered. I would be interested to know what the proportion is for Wales compared with, for example, the south-east and other areas in the United Kingdom. In particular, we feel that four seats for the population in Wales does not accord with Northern Ireland’s three. Rather than have other areas reduced, we feel that Wales should have one more seat. I would be grateful for the noble Lord’s comments.

I am afraid that it is not within my power to give seats to Wales or even to my beloved East Midlands—I cannot do it, much as I might wish to. I can say a word or two about the Sainte-Laguë method, if the Committee will bear with me. I very much invite noble Lords who have a huge interest to look at the document, Distribution Between Electoral Regions of UK MEPs, which was published in July 2007 by the Electoral Commission. Appendix A provides the detailed workings of,

“Full iterative working: the Sainte-Laguë method”.

I do not claim for a moment that I understand it, but it is absolutely fascinating.

André Sainte-Laguë was a professor of applied mathematics at the Conservatoire National des Artes et Métiers in Paris. He devised a mathematical formula for apportioning seats in elections where a proportional voting system is used. We use that system in the European elections. The Sainte-Laguë method is a division method with standard rounding and is similar to the d’Hondt method. The whole Committee will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who said how much we miss Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish; d’Hondt was completely his. It is used to distribute seats to parties at European parliamentary elections, as well as in the selection of additional member seats to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the London Assembly.

Noble Lords will recall with pleasure that under that method, seats are allocated one by one at each stage to the region with the highest number of electors, after that number has been divided by the number of seats already allocated—wait for it—plus one. The Sainte-Laguë method is similar, but uses different divisors. The regional electorates are divided by two times the number of seats already allocated, plus one. Whereas the d’Hondt method uses one, two, three, four and so on as successive divisors, the Sainte-Laguë method uses one, three, five, seven and so on. Given that I have explained that so brilliantly, I know that noble Lords will absolutely understand at once how the system works, but just in case they may have missed the finer points, I strongly recommend that they look at Appendix A of the document. The system is fascinating, and is how it has been calculated that the six seats that we lose are taken away from six areas, while the other six areas retain the existing number of seats. I have spoken for quite long enough.

Can the Minister give us some very simple figures?

I apologise, but another Division has been called. The Committee stands adjourned until 4.58 pm or earlier, if all participants are content to continue.

[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.48 pm to 4.53 pm.]

I shall continue with the question I sought to put to the Minister before the Division Bell rang. It is very simple: how does the electorate compared with the number of seats vary from one region to another. Are some regions being dealt with better than others? Obviously there has to be some variation because you cannot get these things exactly right, but I would be interested to know the degree of variation between the best represented and the least represented.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The minimum number for any region has to be three; that is the bottom line, and it is important to understand that.

Let me set out the electorate in round terms for each region and what the recommended seats are for them. The East Midlands has an electorate of 3,286,000 and five seats. The eastern region has 4,199,000 and seven seats. London has 5,105,000 and eight seats. The north-east has 1,943,000 and three seats. The north-west has 5,188,000 and eight seats. The south-east has 6,120,000 and 10 seats. The south-west has 3,947,000 and six seats. The West Midlands has 4,039,000 and six seats. Yorkshire and the Humber has 3,775,000 and six seats. Wales has 2,243,000 and four seats. Scotland has 3,877,000 and six seats. Northern Ireland has 1,070,000 and three seats. That is a total of 72 seats. One MEP equals a certain number of electors in each of these regions, and it is true that Northern Ireland has a slightly better ratio than other areas have. I would be happy to show the noble Lord the full figures after the regulations have been passed.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he was rather coy when he said that Northern Ireland has a slightly better ratio. I would be interested to know what the ratio is. I would also like to know what the variation is between Northern Ireland, which he describes as having the best ratio, and the worst. What is the worst? It must be a very simple little sum, which he and I could work out on a calculator, to see that the ratio in one area is X and in another X minus whatever. If he cannot give it to me straightaway, I would be grateful if he could write to me and place a copy of that letter in the Library in due course.

In very broad terms—everything that I have given has been in broad terms—Northern Ireland has one MEP for 350,000 electors, and Wales has one MEP for 560,000 electors.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2008.

The noble Baroness said: The minimum wage is a key protection for the UK’s workers that provides a floor for workers while protecting business through a level playing field without competition on the basis simply of low pay. The regulations will increase the national minimum wage rates by 3.8 per cent from 1 October this year and will benefit around 1 million people. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the independent Low Pay Commission on the new rates. As always, the Low Pay Commission considered a wide range of evidence before making its recommendations. This included talking to business and workers and considering economic, sectoral and labour market data and forecasts. The rate is intended to balance an increased minimum wage without damaging employment prospects by being set too high.

The regulations also make changes relating to the Jobcentre Plus work trials programme, and clarify the position of participants in some government employment programmes. Work trials are a long-standing, successful employment programme on which individuals claiming benefits agree to be placed with a potential employer for a short trial period with the intention of being offered the job permanently. Evidence suggests that employers sometimes screen out the long-term jobless because of misconceptions or stereotypical views about their work experience and skills. Work trials can help to overcome this by allowing employers to find out more about an individual’s actual performance in a job. At the same time, they help demonstrate to individuals that their barriers to work are not as high as they might have thought.

I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations, although she did it at some speed so I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I have not picked up every nuance. The British workforce is among the most dedicated in the world, and we support the intent that our people not only are encouraged to work but also earn enough income from that work to support themselves and their families and to protect them from unfair discrimination by unscrupulous employers. Employers’ organisations, on the other hand, have of late been expressing their increasing concerns at the impact of inflation—arising from, among other things, the recent dramatic increases in fuel and other costs—on the competitiveness of British businesses.

In accepting the LPC’s recommendation of slightly above predicted increases in prices, as well as the average increase in current pay settlements, are not the Government concerned about the effects of inflation upon the competitiveness of our companies? If they are, what action are they taking to ameliorate the effect of that inflation on the health of our businesses, without which, of course, there would be no earnings and no profits on which to levy tax?

Small businesses—I declare an interest as a shareholder in one—employ a sizeable proportion of the country’s workforce. They employ a high proportion of lower paid workers and often already operate at marginal rates of profitability. This gives rise to the concern, especially in the manufacturing and retail sectors, that if costs rise when profits are already wafer thin, redundancies are the only realistic option, thus often hitting the lowest paid hardest. The Minister mentioned that there is a delicate balance between keeping inflation at an acceptable level and ensuring that workers are protected from unacceptably low levels of pay. I look forward to her comments on this matter.

I have two other questions. First, how will the Government avoid a conflict between the provisions of the forthcoming Equality Bill to outlaw discrimination on grounds of age on the one hand and the fact that these regulations include lower minimum wage provisions in respect of workers below the age of 21 on the other? I suspect there is a straightforward answer and I look forward to it.

Finally, does Regulation 6 mean that if you are provided with free accommodation in return for a few hours’ free work per week, but you also have a full-time job independent of your landlord, that your landlord will be de facto in breach? Have the Government assessed how many people might lose their homes as a result? I look forward to the Minister’s responses to these points and to the points of other noble Lords.

Whenever these regulations come before your Lordships, I always welcome the change in tone of the Conservative Opposition from when we started these debates 10 years ago. They were then, of course, significantly against the introduction of the national minimum wage, which is now recognised on all sides of the House as an important part of our economic framework. We welcome the regulations, particularly—this is a point we made when the Bill was introduced all those years ago—as the Government seem to be sticking, by and large, to their undertaking at the time to comply with the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission. The noble Baroness indicated that this is a recommendation of the Low Pay Commission.

I do not wish to detain the Committee for long but perhaps I may touch on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, with regard to the differential between workers over 21 and under 21. The noble Baroness will be aware that, right from the start, my party has had significant reservations about this. I am not going to come to the issue from the point made by the noble Lord about how the new Equality Bill will impact on it; rather I ask the noble Baroness, perhaps somewhat cheekily, whether she would care to comment on press rumours that the Government will be under pressure from the trade union movement to alter the differential.

I am grateful for the support of noble Lords for the national minimum wage. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the issue of inflation is obviously very current and we are cognisant of the impact that it has on businesses, particularly in the retail, construction and other specific sectors. Nevertheless, the 3.8 per cent increase proposed is in line with the independent forecast for average earnings, which is 4 per cent. So it does not have an additional impact on businesses; it is what they would get, in one sense, from the market. On the Equalities Bill, I am advised that it provides an exemption for employers using the youth or development rates of the minimum wage from challenge on the grounds of age discrimination. I am afraid that I do not have the correct answer as regards the point about landlords and I am not entirely sure that I correctly understood the question. I would have been aware of any problems as regards people being thrown out of their homes. Therefore, I can probably reassure the noble Lord on that point in writing.

I understand that Regulation 6 refers to a minimum rate of earnings even if you have free accommodation. If you provide a few hours of unpaid work in return for free accommodation but also have a salaried full-time job elsewhere, would that place the landlord in breach of the measure?

I believe that it would not. However, I suspect that it would depend on how the work provided in lieu of accommodation has been declared. The hourly rate for work carried out elsewhere would be subject to the national minimum wage provisions. However, I am still not sure that I have understood the noble Lord’s question. Therefore, I shall take it away and respond in writing.

I can only restate for the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the Government’s clear view on pay restraint. Temporary price increases will sustain inflation if they lead to a spiral of wage increases. Therefore, we remain firm on all issues relating to public sector pay. As regards the impact on businesses, an impact assessment has shown that the cost will be somewhere between zero and £62 million. Given the rate of inflation and average wages, I should say that that will be a decreasing cost. As I said, the measure is in line with average earnings so there will not be an additional cost in adhering to the national minimum wage provisions. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008.

The noble Baroness said: We propose that these new regulations shall replace the current regulations, the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987 under the vires of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 and Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

The purpose of the proposed new regulations is to extend to solicited visits the cooling-off period and cancellation rights that currently apply to contracts made during unsolicited visits by traders; and to require that a notice of the right to cancel the contract be prominently and clearly displayed in the same document where the contract is completed wholly or partly in writing.

As in the current regulations, the proposed regulations apply to contracts made during visits by a trader to the consumer’s home; to his place of work; to the home of another person; or on an excursion organised by the trader away from his business premises.

There are certain contracts to which the proposed regulations do not apply. These include contracts made during solicited visits and relate to consumer credit and home purchase sales, where current regulation under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is considered adequate and satisfactory.

As before, under the proposed regulations the consumer will have the right to cancel the contract at any time during a cooling-off period of seven calendar days starting from the date of receipt by the consumer of a notice of a right to cancel. The regulations apply to contracts with a total payment value of £35 or more.

The proposed regulations will now require that the notice of the right to cancel must be prominently displayed in a contract that is completed wholly or partly in writing. The notice must be easily legible and where incorporated in a contract must be set out in a separate box with the heading “notice of the right to cancel”.

For certain types of contract, for example the sale of perishable goods, where a consumer has agreed to performance of the contract beginning before the end of the cooling-off period, we propose that the trader must include in the notice of the right to cancel a statement that payment may be required if the contract is subsequently cancelled, and the consumer must record their agreement in writing to performance of the contract beginning before the end of the cooling-off period, if that is what the consumer wishes. These proposals will give the consumer and the trader more certainty in what has been agreed and when performance of the contract can begin. In the event of a dispute, it will provide the enforcement bodies with a much clearer audit trail.

Again I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations, which I think originate in the Citizens Advice complaint to the OFT in 2002. I understand that they extend the existing right of consumers to a seven-day cooling-off period for unsolicited visits to solicited ones as well. We understand the impetus behind the regulations and certainly agree that vulnerable consumers need protection from unscrupulous vendors. However, I have one particular question to which I am sure the Minister can provide a satisfactory answer.

Once these regulations are in force, if, as an example, I invite a plumber to carry out some work on my house and within seven days I decide I do not like the quality of his work, can I avoid the contract with him? If so, can he sue me, and on what legal basis? I cannot believe that he would not be allowed to sue, but if he cannot, would it not simply allow me to take advantage of the regulations to get work done for free? Under the law as it stands, before confirmation of these regulations, I can argue with the plumber that his work was deficient, but at least he has a contractual basis on which to argue with me. The Small Business Advice Service made it clear during the consultation process that it believes these regulations will result in increased costs for many legitimate businesses while having a limited impact on real rogue traders. How does the Minister propose to ensure that such negative impact is kept to the absolute minimum and that the regulations are enforced effectively to curb the operations of such rogue traders?

Like the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, I welcome these regulations and congratulate Citizens Advice, which has been leading the campaign to deal with what is clearly a serious problem. The only point I want to make is that under the cancellation notice the period is to be seven days. I think that I am right that during the consultation period before these regulations were brought in, a strong view was expressed in the lobbying that that period was slightly too short and that a 14-day period would be better. Moreover, when the regulations were debated in the other place, the answer the Minister gave then—which seemed to have some degree of spurious common sense—was that the seven-day period would bring it in line with solicited visits and the existing provisions in consumer credit legislation.

On reflection, I would have thought that that is not necessarily the case. When a solicited visit is made, the individual consumer has already determined in principle that they wish to enter into that particular form of contract, whereas unsolicited visits of the nature that this regulation is designed to deal with are often quite different. Have the Government had an opportunity to reflect yet again on whether a 14-day period would be better than seven days?

In response to the first question, I can safely say that it would not hinder the ability of the supplier to ensure that they can get payment. The cooling-off period is therefore not related to the quality of the work which, depending on the type of work, would have its own set of regulations for settling any disputes. It would therefore have no impact. Indeed, the regulation specifies that a consumer shall be required,

“to pay in accordance with the reasonable requirements”,

of the specified contractor for goods that were provided before cancellation and that were made to a customer’s specifications or had been incorporated into any contract. There is therefore no impact on the requirement on the consumer to pay.

I understand that the noble Lord is also concerned that the burden should fall only on rogue traders. In fact, many businesses already voluntarily provide consumers with a cooling-off period and a cancellation right in relation to a contract made as the result of a solicited visit by a trader. Members of the Direct Selling Association, whose member companies account for 59 per cent of total direct sales, offer consumers a 14-day cooling-off period as part of their code of practice.

There was some lobbying about whether the cooling-off period should be 14 days. My understanding is that, after analysing the issue, we were not persuaded that the cooling-off period should be increased because there was no quantifiable evidence to suggest that that was necessary. We also considered the point in light of the ongoing discussions in the European Commission, which will consider cooling-off periods in all the legislation that applies to consumer protection. The Commission will bring forward proposals later in the year.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies (Reduction of Share Capital) Order 2008.

The noble Baroness said: The order does two things. It sets out how the reserves arising from a reduction of capital—the cash that a company gets from reducing its share capital—may be treated, and it provides the form in which a solvency statement must be made, underpinning the new option introduced by the Companies Act for private companies to reduce their share capital without reference to a court. The treatment of reserves arises when a company, public or private, has reduced its share capital by any of the means permitted to it. The order clarifies whether the reserve is to be treated as distributable to shareholders by way of, for example, dividends.

The provisions of the order follow consultation on drafts and detailed discussions with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Law Society. The order provides that, subject to some exceptions, reserves resulting from a reduction of capital will be treated as “realised profits” for the purposes of Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006. Part 23 sets out the rules for the distribution of a company’s assets. The effect of the order is that, with certain specified exceptions, once a reserve is created, Part 23 controls its distribution. This removes the need for what is currently extensive professional guidance on the matter.

The second aspect of the order arises from the need to prescribe the form of the solvency statement that is provided for under Section 643 of the 2006 Act. This part of the Act enables private companies to rely on a solvency statement for the purpose of reducing share capital without the need to have the reduction confirmed by a court. For companies wishing to utilise the solvency statement route under the new Act, the directors must form the opinion and confirm in a statement that, at the date of the statement, there are no grounds on which the company could be found to be unable to pay its debts; that if it is intended to commence a winding-up at any time in the 12 months following the statement, the company will be able to pay its debts within 12 months of the commencement of the winding up; and that, in any other case, the company will be able to pay its debts within the year following the date of the solvency statement. The content required of the solvency statement is therefore set out in the Act. This order relates only to the form of the statement which the Act requires to be prescribed in an order.

In this order we have prescribed the most elementary requirements as to the form of a solvency statement: it must be in writing, indicate that it is a solvency statement for the purposes of Section 642 of the Companies Act 2006 and be signed by each of the company directors. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies (Reduction of Share Capital) Order 2008. 22nd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Vadera.)

I thank the Minister for explaining the order. I declare an interest as a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, on whose briefing I will draw in a moment. Before I do so, I should say that we strongly support anything which reduces the regulatory burden on business.

On the transitional provisions, I understand that, even after implementation of the order, a surplus which has arisen on a reduction of capital which took place before 1 October this year will not become distributable. Is there any logic for this?

I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take this opportunity to probe the wider context of the Government’s position on the possibility of more fundamental reform of the capital maintenance and distributions regime, both at United Kingdom and EU levels. For example, it appears from a recent KPMG study into the costs of the capital maintenance regime, and the commission’s reaction thereto, that the UK has over-implemented the second directive regime, resulting in much higher costs in the UK compared to other member states. This appears to be caused by the UK’s realised profits test, which, as I understand it, is not required in other member states. Do the Government propose to consult urgently and widely, with a view to reforming these rules? If not, why not?

The interaction between IFRS or converged UK GAAP and the current capital maintenance and distribution rules can mean that the payment of dividends can become an extremely and unnecessarily complicated process. Can the Minister explain what action the Government are taking to press the EU for changes to the second directive in relation to public companies and to alleviate the problems faced by private companies?

On the issue of the date, following discussions with stakeholders we are minded to agree that the provisions on reserves arising from reductions of share capital should be applicable prospectively as from 1 October 2008, irrespective of when the capital reduction took effect. The matter will be addressed in the draft seventh commencement order, which is currently subject to public consultation. We intend to make the order before the Summer Recess.

I am aware that there is wider debate with respect to specific aspects of the capital maintenance regimes—for instance, the realisation test—and that there are arguments both for and against further legislative reforms. European Community law governs much, if not all, of this area. While we do not currently have plans to publish a consultation on the specific proposals, we are maintaining an open dialogue with interested stakeholders and are keeping this issue under review. We continue to discuss with the Commission and other member states the case for reform of the second directive, which we support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Small Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008.

The noble Baroness said: We are considering three sets of draft regulations to be made under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000: the Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) (Application Of Companies) Act 2006 Regulations 2008; the Small Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008, and the Large and Medium-Sized Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008.

The first set of regulations applies, with modification, the provisions of Parts 15, 16 and 42 of the Companies Act 2006, dealing with the accounts of limited liability partnerships and the audit of those accounts. The other two sets of regulations apply to small and to large and medium-sized limited liability partnerships respectively provisions on the form and content of accounts previously contained in schedules to the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 as applied to limited liability partnerships.

Limited liability partnerships were created by the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 and its Northern Ireland equivalent in 2002. A great deal of the substance of the law applying to limited liability partnerships is created by regulations applying parts of company law, particularly the Companies Act 1985, to limited liability partnerships with appropriate modifications. A similar approach is taken in Northern Ireland.

Since its creation seven years ago, the limited liability partnerships structure has appealed to businesses of all sizes and sectors. The number of businesses choosing to operate as limited liability partnerships continues to rise—from 24,555 in May 2007 to nearly 30,000 by February this year. The Companies Act 2006 has introduced important reforms to company law. In light of these changes, the Government will apply the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act to limited liability partnerships. This will be done in two stages. The first is the draft regulations we are debating today. These apply the accounts and audit provisions of the 2006 Act to limited liability partnerships. These will come into effect for financial years beginning on or after 1 October 2008; and the new Companies Act provisions on accounts and audit came into force for companies on 6 April 2008. Our consultees told us that they would like the equivalent provisions to be brought into force for limited liability partnerships on 1 October 2008. The second stage will be to apply the remaining relevant provisions of the 2006 Act to LLPs with effect from 1 October 2009 in line with the implementation timetable for the Companies Act. For these provisions we plan to publish draft regulations for comment later this year.

The regulations before the Committee are the result of consultations on the broad approach to applying the 2006 Act to LLPs, and then on the detail. The vast majority of respondents to the consultations supported our approach. Following the principles of “think small first” and to improve the clarity of the legislation, we have taken this opportunity to change the structure of the legislation applying aspects of company law to LLPs. The 2001 LLP regulations apply large parts of the Companies Act 1985 with modification of varying degrees made by textual amendment in schedules to those regulations. This creates a complex set of regulations that have to be read together with the 1985 Act. A similar approach is taken in Northern Ireland.

In contrast, the regulations we are debating today set out the 2006 Act provisions applied to LLPs in full, as modified to take account of particular characteristics of LLPs. As is the case for companies, separate regulations for small LLPs and for medium-sized and large LLPs will apply the provisions on form and content of accounts previously contained in schedules to the 1985 Act and the 1986 Northern Ireland order. By applying the 2006 Act in this way we ensure that LLPs reap the benefits of simpler, clearer and more cost-effective legislation in more modern language. In line with the extension of company law to Northern Ireland, the regulations applying the 2006 Act to LLPs will also extend to LLPs in Northern Ireland.

In summary, the draft regulations are the first phase of the application of the Companies Act 2006 to limited liability partnerships. They restate in full the provisions as applied, in a set of stand alone regulations that are more user-friendly for LLPs, particularly small LLPs and their advisers. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Small Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008. 22nd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Vadera.)

I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the regulations, the impulsion for which is, I understand, the reduction of the regulatory burden on limited liability partnerships through the application of certain provisions of the Companies Act 2006. As I said earlier, we strongly welcome any attempt to deregulate and make life simpler. Furthermore, I do not think that the regulations are hugely controversial in themselves. There are, however, a couple of matters that I would like to raise.

First, the impact assessments each tabulate the number of small, medium-sized and large LLPs that were respectively in existence in May 2007. What are the dividing lines between small, medium and large? Are those dividing lines structured so as to move over time in line with inflation—which, after all, is now rather more significant than it has been in recent years?

Secondly, I take this opportunity to make a gently critical point about BERR’s procedures for calculating the financial impact of an SI. Perhaps the Minister can confirm this, but I understand that to estimate the cost on LLPs of implementing the Companies Act 2006 BERR simply took its estimate of costs of implementation on limited companies, multiplied it by the number of LLPs and then divided the result by the number of limited companies. LLPs tend to be small, as the Government’s own figures show, and so do not tend to have in-house access to all the things that large companies do. If, for instance, a senior member of an LLP did his own accounts under the old system, the implementation of the new one will mean that he has either to retrain—Companies Act 2006 provisions being somewhat different from the 1985 ones—or to subcontract to an accountant, both of which will cost money.

Furthermore, this SI does not blanket apply the Companies Act 2006. A number of exceptions are made—for instance, where the Act refers to specific numbers, and on definitions of company types and so on. I suggest that these render it yet more inappropriate to calculate the cost of implementation in this way.

If I am correct, in essence the department has used a short-cut method of determining the costs to LLPs of implementing the Companies Act 2006 that is not up to its normal standards. Perhaps the Minister could respond to that suggestion.

As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, indicates, the regulations, which are being debated together, are not in themselves controversial. I await with interest the Minister’s answer to his question. I wish to put on the record, as perhaps the Minister did not do the Government justice in her opening remarks, how much I approve of and appreciate the way this is being done. When the Bill that became the Companies Act 2006, which turned out to be the longest Bill in the history of your Lordships’ House, was being debated, one of the points we made at Second Reading was that it was a serious error not to regard it as a consolidation Bill. Eventually the Government acceded to that argument and produced it as a consolidation Bill.

I hope this is a precedent for all future regulations under the Bill. It ought to go on record how important it is that they take the form of option C as set out in the impact assessment, rather than option B. Had option B been implemented for the purposes of these regulations, the only beneficiary would have been the publisher Butterworths, which would have had to have sold more copies of its book for people to plough through in order to try to cross-relate the relevant sections of the Companies Act to these regulations. I welcome the fact that option C has been the approach, so we have a set of regulations that stand on their own which anyone can read when they see what has to go into accounts. I hope that, the consolidation of the 2006 Act having been achieved, future regulations made under it can take this form rather than requiring people to cross-relate to the legislation. I wanted to say that, and I hope that Hansard will reflect it.

With reference to the question about the way in which thresholds are set, they are set at the European level. If we were to have our own set of thresholds and uprate them every time for inflation, we would be adding a layer of complexity that would not be appropriate either for the Government or for businesses. For the purpose of information, the thresholds are, for a small LLP, a turnover of not more than £6.5 million and a balance sheet of £3.26 million, and for a medium-sized LLP, £25.9 million turnover and £12.9 million in balance sheet. We do not think it would be appropriate to have a different set of definitions.

I cannot answer the question about the way in which the impact assessment was carried out because it was done some time ago, but I shall see if lessons can be learnt—not least wearing my hat as the Minister for better regulation; it is the least I can do. I am most grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, which will be warmly welcomed by the large number of people in BERR who have been working on this for some time.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Large and Medium-sized Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008. 22nd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Vadera.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2008. 22nd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Vadera.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Committee adjourned at 5.41 pm.