Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 55:"Page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (2) and insert—" ““(2)   The Secretary of State may by order provide that section 2(1) shall not prevent the provision of claims management services— (a)   by a specified person or class of person, or (b)   in specified circumstances, provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person or class of person so specified is likely to provide those services to at least the same standards as those set by regulations under this Act.”” The noble Lord said: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for moving the previous set of amendments. We have made good progress in hearing from the Minister the way in which regulation will pan out. This amendment mirrors Amendment No. 53, to which I previously spoke but did not move, on the grounds that it would help to establish a level playing field for consumer standards. Whereas in Clause 4(1) it was relatively clear what the Government were trying to achieve, I am far less clear about what is intended here. Perhaps I may pause for a moment to explain to the Minister that I want to see a seamless robe of regulation over the whole field of claims management services. I am troubled that there may be gaps. In addition, we may be catching services which perhaps do not need to be regulated. It is a very difficult area in which to reach a final conclusion. I can see therefore that the parliamentary draftsman is trying to sweep up everything possible. That leads me to subsection (2), which I have a little difficulty in following. Clause 4(2) states:"““The Secretary of State may by order provide . . . that section 2(1) shall not prevent the provision of regulated claims management services—(a) by a specified person or class of person, (b) in specified circumstances, or (c) by a specified person or class of person in specified circumstances””." I would love the Minister to explain the inexplicable and to defend the indefensible. I understand why this is here, but what it is all about? One can see that with the exemption of a specified body and its members we are trying to avoid overlapping regulation, which is much to be welcomed subject to ensuring the consistent application of standards, but what is the Minister trying to do here? Are these specified persons or circumstances also already regulated? If so, can we have some examples? Or are some individuals or groups to be excluded altogether from these new regulations? If so, who and why? There is another significant change here. The Bill provides that the Lord Chancellor may empower the regulator to grant amendments under this section. Noticeably, when we were dealing with the previous provision for exempting members of specified bodies, the power was reserved to the Lord Chancellor and rightly so. But why has the regulator now come into this subsection? Will the Minister please explain why the provisions differ and how consumers will be safeguarded? I fear that the clause as drafted could well be regarded as a ““cronies’ charter””. As well as having real teeth and being effective, it is so important that this new legislation and any regulations formed by it should pass the fairness test. I am concerned that this might undermine that. I say that without any knowledge about who the regulator might be but, if whoever is to be the regulator has this power, I can see various accusations being made. I am concerned that, at some stage when this Bill becomes law, it will be subject to various challenges. One group may say that they are carrying out a superlative service and should not be regulated, whereas another group giving the same service, but perhaps ancillary to a range of other services, will fall the other side. I am worried about how the legislation is drafted at present because it could give rise to a whole series of challenges that would make it even more complicated than it is now. No doubt all will be revealed when the Minister rises to explain. I beg to move.