Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 32:"Page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (e)." The noble Lord said: It may be useful for the Committee if we consider Amendment No. 33 with Amendment No. 32, which would leave out paragraph (e) and insert—I immediately see that I am not getting through to the noble Baroness—a number of instances where the types of claims management services to be regulated are set out. As presently drafted, Clause 2(2)(e) would give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor power to prescribe what types of claims management services are to be regulated. Arguably, this clause is the root of the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I raised earlier in debates on this Bill; namely, that delegated powers, as such, are not contained in very much detail. In particular, this clause could make the impact of the Bill much less wide-ranging than might otherwise be the case. Omission of this paragraph would necessitate a number of consequential amendments to embody the principle that all claims management services should be assumed to be caught unless they are exempt, including, in particular, the definition of regulated claims management services under Clause 10. We would argue that all claims management services should be caught by the regulations, which would in many ways ensure a level playing field for all those who enter this sector, with no services outside the scope of the new regulations. That would seem to be very fair and would be focused and targeted in the way that my noble friend Lord Eccles referred to. We need to ensure that all those who need to be are affected by the new regulations. It would be good for the Minister to provide a more considered and detailed response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers Committee in its report. In response, I expect that the Minister will say that the flexibility that she will receive under the legislation is required to move urgently to deal as and when new abuses emerge in the brave new world that the Bill will usher in. Our position, however, is that we need the powers to extend to all areas in which there is evident abuse. An alternative to leaving out Clause 2(2)(e) would be to make a clear and unambiguous statement in the Bill regarding the scope of the services to be regulated, which explains Amendment No. 33. One possibility would be along the lines of that outlined by the noble Baroness at Second Reading, including scope for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to extend the list through secondary legislation. In Amendment No. 33, I have sought to bring together the key areas that should be regulated. I have no doubt that the areas specified in Amendment No. 33 will remain active areas of activity for claims management companies for some time. However, our preference remains that all services should be covered, rather than setting out a list that would inevitably encourage claims management companies to find a gap or loophole to exploit. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wants to limit his powers on initial implementation, he should do so in primary legislation. I am suggesting that as an alternative, and, in order to show her good offices, the Minister might graciously pass me across the Committee Floor the draft regulations which she proposes to lay. I suspect that she may not be able to do that at present, but it would be helpful if she could address the issue in responding to the amendment. I beg to move.