Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 42:"Page 2, line 47, at end insert ““but not in such a way as to advertise those services””" The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 42 seeks to clarify, and to restrict or qualify, the proposal that the regulator must be someone who will increase public awareness of the regulation of services. The current draft could be taken to imply that the regulator may only add to the advertising problem. Like a number of the amendments that we are considering, this one stems from the need to strengthen faith in the independence of the potential regulator and to ensure that the Government’s intentions are made much clearer in primary legislation. If the regulator is forced to promote public awareness of regulated services, he or she is arguably being required also to promote claims management services generally. A raising of public awareness of the necessary standards, while the regulator maintains a demonstrable distance from those services and those who provide them, is required. We need to be sure that the right message is being sent to the consumer. We need to be very careful about any activity by the regulator, from a perceived position of trust, doing anything to undermine that. The regulator will be a statutory appointment: it will look like part of government. Therefore, I would not want to see it sending out messages promoting self-interest, as opposed to the wider public interest. Of course, I recognise that it is a question of balance, but we and the regulator need to be clear what that balance is. If all claims management companies are regulated, at least the kite mark question should not arise. The amendment seeks clarification from the Minister on where the line is to be drawn between regulating the sector and promoting self-interest. I could go down the poacher/gamekeeper route, but if you are converting from being poacher to gamekeeper, it is virtually impossible to be 100 per cent gamekeeper, which is the key issue at stake. Against that background, I beg to move.