Compensation Bill [HL]

I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these issues. As well as being busy, the Department of Constitutional Affairs has me as its Minister. That may explain a number of things to the noble Lord. I am sorry he will not be with us on Wednesday. I recognise that he has an incredible workload. His ears might have been burning when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said how much he valued the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am not sure that the Government always value him, but I am sorry that he will not be here. If there are any issues that the poor soul who is given the watching brief on Wednesday does not cover, I shall ensure that I cover them in conversation with the noble Lord. I understand his concern about the enforcement provisions and whether they are appropriate for a private body. The regulations that we plan to make under Paragraph 16 of the Schedule will make sure that the powers are proportionate and are undertaken only in strict accordance with the regulatory framework. There will be a range of safeguards, including the proportionality of the enforcement action in relation to the alleged offence or infringement, and a clear requirement for sufficient evidence to support the proposed action. In this context, it is important to bear in mind the role of the Secretary of State who has oversight responsibility for the regulator. If a body is designated under Clause 3, we will keep a close eye on its activities. We do not want to create a situation where the regulator cannot take the necessary enforcement action without recourse to the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State can give the regulator directions under Clause 3(4) that may specify the need to keep him informed of any enforcement action. I am hoping that the way we set this out in regulations and the role of the Secretary of State will give the comfort that the noble Lord is seeking in this area because it is important to make sure that we can take action as appropriate. However, I understand the point about a private body in this context. I cannot accept Amendment No. 63 because without effective enforcement the regulator would be irrelevant. We think it is crucial that he can take swift and firm action to clamp down on abuses and make sure that we protect consumers. It is acceptable to use such a body provided that we have the necessary safeguards. The FSA is an independent non-governmental body that already has similar powers. This goes back to the question that bedevils noble Lords about who the regulator will be. We will make sure that it is accepted that we have approached this properly and got an appropriate regulator in place. We will make sure that they are subject to proper regulation and to oversight by the Secretary of State. The proposed independent legal services board may come into play in this. On Amendment No. 64, I completely understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that powers should cover the situation where a claims manager operates from a remote site. However, I have checked, and the current drafting is wide enough to catch that. It would also cover situations involving the occasional use of premises, for example, to store papers. It might not if the amendment were accepted. I am not accepting this amendment on the basis that we have checked that we have got the powers within the current drafting. On Amendments Nos. 65 and 105A, I agree with the noble Lord that there should be a requirement for a judicial warrant in relation to the power to enter and search premises. I thank him for raising this important issue and I shall take it away and consider it further on Report. I need to redraft it in order to make it work properly. I agree that we need to put safeguards in place. We also intend to include further details about the circumstances in which powers can be exercised—for example, regulations will state that powers would be exercised only during reasonable hours and only material that is, or might be, relevant to the alleged offence would be copied. I have some reservations about requiring a warrant for the provision of information and documents. I fear that the warrant could impose unnecessary burdens on the regulator, who would frequently require authorised persons to provide information and documents, for example, in relating to the investigation of a complaint. We already have a mandatory requirement for regulations specifying the circumstances and conditions where powers in Clause 6(4) may be exercised. That will include the requirement that people must be given a reasonable time to provide that information. I will put forward revised proposals for this on Report. Amendments Nos. 98 and 100 are linked to the amendments that we intended to bring forward to meet the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Although the schedule already includes provisions at paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 for regulations to set out appeal arrangements, we accept the Committee’s concern that they lack clarity as they are currently drafted. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this and will take into account what has been said when we prepare amendments on appeals to meet the points that have been raised. I shall table the amendments on Report and will share them with noble Lords as soon as they are ready. They will clarify the details of the appeals mechanism. I shall briefly outline what we envisage in relation to complaints by consumers about the conduct of authorised persons. There will be a requirement in the rules for authorised persons to have their own complaints procedure. In the event that the complaint is not settled to the satisfaction of the consumer, he will be able to refer it to the regulator. The regulator will carry out an investigation and we envisage that if the authorised person is not satisfied with the outcome he will be able to refer the matter to an independent panel. There will then be a right of appeal to the courts. I intend to make this clear on the face of the Bill. It is extremely important that any decisions that are determinative of a person’s civil rights will be subject to the safeguards guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, those decisions that the regulator has power to make that could fall into this category will be appealable to an independent panel. They will include refusals to grant authorisation or the attachment of conditions to an authorisation. Our intention is to expand on the current fairly broad power in the Bill for regulations to be made about appeals by the authorised person about decisions of the regulator. It will need an additional provision, possibly a new clause, to set out the details of an independent appeals process that is Article 6 compliant. I hope the noble Lord will agree that that will put the necessary safeguards in place. I am grateful for the amendments and hope that I have addressed them appropriately so that they can be withdrawn.