Compensation Bill [HL]

I strongly support the noble Lord’s amendment. As he explained, the subsection creates a defence for individuals who can demonstrate that they did not know that they were breaking the law. I immediately went to the Explanatory Notes, and found in paragraph 38 an assumption that the regulator might from time to time be incompetent. The paragraph says:"““The defence might apply, for example, where a person who does not offer claims management services in the ordinary course of business checks whether or not he needs to be authorised, is told (wrongly)””—" presumably by the regulator—"““that he does not, and then goes on to offer a claims management service to a client in the mistaken belief that he is legally able to do so””." As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, those are all circumstances that can be taken into account when the court or tribunal comes to decide on the guilt of the individual. My concern is reinforced in the knowledge that we are dealing with some pretty slippery people. Only last week the Law Gazette carried a story with the headline,"““Asset-freezing order issued for TAG founder””." The story said:"““The founder of The Accident Group . . . who is facing a hearing to disqualify him as a director in a few weeks . . . had an asset-freezing order issued against him last month.""TAG liquidator Begbies Traynor won an application to freeze Mark Langford’s Spanish villa and £1.5 million yacht, as well as certain bank accounts””." I wonder if the likes of Mark Langford are still saying that they didn’t realise that they were doing wrong. I have referred already to the shameless activity of one of the Claims Standards Council’s leading members after the London bombings. Noble Lords will remember that the Law Society had set up and publicised a free service for victims, but that did not deter 1st Class Legal from signing up claimants to its fee-paying service. When challenged, the head of the company simply claimed that he was unaware of the free service. So lack of knowledge is often used as an excuse; I do not like the idea that we should move it from being an excuse to being a defence. If we leave this provision in the Bill, we run the risk of creating a privileged sector of ““wise monkeys”” who will claim always to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, because we will encourage them not to check whether they are complying. Surely the message that the Committee should send is, ““If in doubt, make sure you’re the right side of the line””.