Compensation Bill [HL]

Some time ago, I promised myself that I would never allow myself to become involved in one of the numerous debates about ““may”” or ““shall””. However, on this occasion I find myself, to my surprise, departing from my previous intention and tabling my amendments. Amendment No. 90 applies to paragraph 9(2) of the Schedule. The effect is that regulations must make provision about the manner in which rules are to be prepared and published and about the consequence of failure to comply with the rules. That seems to be inevitable and something that must absolutely go into any regulations. I have not extended the substitution of ““shall”” for ““may”” to the various details—for example, what should be included, whether there should be consultation or the submission of the draft to the Secretary of State for approval—although I certainly have every expectation that that would happen. Amendment No. 91 deals with paragraph 10(2) which requires that regulations must include provisions about the manner in which a code is to be prepared and published. Amendment No. 97 requires that regulations must make, or permit the regulator to make, provisions for investigation and the hearing of complaints. Those are all matters that are clearly necessary and as long as we are not able to see a draft of the regulations, it would be desirable to put pressure on the Government in this respect by substituting the word ““shall”” for the word ““may””. Therefore, I support the previous amendments that were moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.