Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 66:"Page 5, line 4, leave out ““may”” and insert ““shall””" The noble Lord said: This amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to give us more detail about the timing of the regulations. I sense that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not get a specific response to his question in that regard, and we now have an opportunity to press the Minister a little further, because we come to what I would describe as the entertaining group of ““may”” or ““shall”” amendments. Lest anyone reading the Marshalled List should think that we have descended to pure semantics, the brevity and uniformity of this and the subsequent amendments, and the fact that for the convenience of the Committee we are taking them together in one group, masks the seriousness of the issues at stake. I know that this Committee will not fall into that trap. We are now entering into the detail of what the regulations made under the Act will look like. I hope that the Minister will feel able to let us know at least when the House is likely to see the first draft of any such regulations to be laid. If I recall, last week in Committee the Minister said:"““While I do not have the exact timings, as those are made ready and become available””—" that is, the regulations—"““I plan to share drafts with . . . noble Lords . . . We shall begin work on the regulations required under the schedule, including consultation on the rules and codes of practice””.—[Official Report, 16/1/06; col. 145-6.]" So we have already had something of an indication. But in considering these amendments, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give us more detail and specify which regulations, in which order, and when, because a substantial task lies ahead of the Government and the Chamber. I hope that we shall be able to see the regulations in good time before the Bill leaves this place. In considering Amendments Nos. 66 and 67, I hope that it will be for the further convenience of the Committee if we also discuss Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 80, 88, 90, 91 and 97. While the overall point is the same—namely, that these should be mandatory requirements and not discretionary ones—I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I focus briefly on what each one does, especially the first few amendments. Amendment No. 66 would make mandatory provision for the Lord Chancellor to regulate the procedure for authorisations under Clause 3 and the functions of the regulator. If that is not a requirement, one asks what is the purpose of Part 2? Amendment No. 67 makes the contents of the Schedule mandatory. It seems perverse or even nonsensical to set out such detail in the Schedule—three and a half pages of it to date—but not to require it to be implemented. After all, the Schedule is largely permissive itself. Surely its implementation must not be open to debate. I believe that much of what we are now discussing lies right at the heart of the criticism that is made of successive governments: that they try to take powers to themselves in drafting regulations without really placing them before the proper parliamentary scrutiny that they deserve. Under the Bill as presently drafted, not only will the Secretary of State be free to make whatever regulations he might see fit to make under this clause, but it would also be possible to make no regulations at all. This is an important matter at the heart of whether the Bill can be made effective and should be on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 78 makes mandatory, as opposed to discretionary, provision for the application procedure for authorisation. That must be right. We have to have a set method for applying for authorisation. Amendment No. 79 similarly requires the regulations to specify criteria that must be applied when the regulator is considering applications for authorisation. Throughout the Schedule, there are detailed provisions about what the regulations are to contain, but those provisions remain, at present, on a discretionary basis, despite the level of detail. It is hardly surprising that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was unhappy. Amendment No. 180 is very close to the previous amendment on the criteria to be applied by the regulator on applications. I cannot see anything here that ought to be left to the discretion of the regulations. Of course, the detail of the criteria will remain something for the Lord Chancellor to consider when the regulations are drawn, but the regulations will have to descend to the level of detail set out here. Amendment No. 88 leaves out ““may enable”” and inserts ““shall require””. As a variation on the theme, this amendment makes it mandatory for the regulator to prescribe rules for the professional conduct of authorised persons. There seems no purpose at all in making this power discretionary. This is partly about tone and partly about substance. It is so important to demonstrate that we mean business on this and that it should be done clearly here in the Bill. I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 97 and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may wish to comment on those amendments. I beg to move.