Transfer of Functions of the Consumer Credit Appeals Tribunal Order 2009

I do not rise to confuse the Minister. I have not been transferred from what I still refer to as the Department of Trade and Industry to be shadow spokesman for the Ministry of Justice; it is just that sometimes one does one’s duty. Generally, my party supports this order, as does the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We have supported the reform of the tribunal system through another place, if for no other reason than that it seemed to us, and indeed the Government, slightly strange to have a system under which there was a whole series of tribunals that were responsible for monitoring the decisions of government departments, but the government department was responsible for monitoring what the tribunal was doing. In any sensible world, that would not be sensible. For that reason, above others, we have supported these reforms. I have three points to raise with the Minister. First, as the Minister will know from his time on trade and industry matters, I have asked this about endless statutory instruments that have been brought forward in this area. I find it very difficult to keep track of what the department is now called, so I continue to refer to it as trade and industry matters. The Government are very good at entering into consultation—much better than many other Governments have been before bringing in such instruments, or indeed legislation. We always get a document that tells us—as this one does at paragraph 8.1—that the Government have consulted and received 140 responses. As I think one of my honourable friends in another place said, it would be very interesting if the Government, in responding to the consultation, could indicate, first, what changes were made to the orders as a result of the consultation; and, secondly, what important points were made by those who were consulted but not taken on board by the Government? I know that this is quite a complicated issue but I always ask this about these orders in the hope that one day the Explanatory Memorandum will set out the arguments for and against, and why the Government rejected them. Secondly, the transport tribunal stays in existence, notwithstanding these changes. I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley touched on this. I understand that the difficulties, which I gather have been referred to as the "floating in limbo" provisions of the Transport Act, still need to be resolved. The more important issue, which I think is unclear, is of how the Government envisage dealing with the Scottish issue. Does this mean that primary legislation must take place in Scotland? Must it take place in the UK? Wherever it takes place, when do the Government think that it will occur? The third issue that I want to raise, which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not, was raised by his honourable friend the MP for North West Norfolk in another place, and I thought it was a very good point. Could some indication be given of the basis on which certain matters are referred to a first-tier tribunal and others to an upper tribunal? Is it to do with levels of judicial expertise? If so, yes; if not, why not?