Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 46:"Page 3, line 16, leave out paragraph (d)." The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 46, I will also speak to Amendment No. 48. They both raise points about the role of the Secretary of State under Clause 3(4). Under Clause 3(4), one of the things that the regulator is required to do is to,"““try to meet any targets set for him by the Secretary of State””." I note that it says ““try to meet””; it is not his obligation to meet them. Perhaps that is a wise qualification, but the provision is unusual—I have not seen anything like it before and wonder why it is here. What sort of target will the regulator be required to meet? Under Clause 3(4)(a), it is the duty of the regulator to,"““comply with any directions given to him by the Secretary of State””." Under Clause 3(4)(b), it is the regulator’s obligation to,"““have regard to any guidance given to him by the Secretary of State””." It seems to me that it would be perfectly possible—indeed, probably normal—to include any targets in either the directions or the guidance. Why, therefore, is paragraph (d) included to create a special obligation to meet,"““targets set for him by the Secretary of State””," as something distinct from either directions or guidance? Have the Government now become so obsessed with the idea of targets that they have to include them on the face of every Bill where they are remotely relevant? Amendment No. 48 deals with codes of practice and is intended to ensure that codes of practice to which the regulator has to have regard under Clause 3(4)(c) have to be laid before Parliament. Codes of practice are a matter of public interest. They are, in general, what is called soft law—that is, not binding law—rather than legislation which must be formally complied with. On that ground, I do not press for any requirement that the codes should be authorised by secondary legislation. However, codes of practice made under statutory powers are usually laid before Parliament—for example, codes made under Sections 9 and 16 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. It seems to me desirable that that precedent should be followed here. Codes of practice are usually issued to groups of people who are being regulated. Paragraph 10 of the Schedule allows the regulator to issue a code of practice to authorised persons. I wonder why it is that, somewhat unusually, a code of practice is being issued to a single person. Why is that not covered—I return to the point I made before—by directions and guidance? I beg to move.