Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 82:"Page 8, line 26, leave out ““permit or””" The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 82 and 85 are effectively a variation on the ““may””/““shall”” theme, in that they delete ““permit or”” to leave only ““require””, thereby toughening up a requirement. Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 highlight another closely related point on the nature of the criteria to be applied by the regulator as to competence or suitability. Amendment No. 82 has to be read with either Amendment No. 83 or Amendment No. 84. It seeks to make it mandatory for the regulator to set standards as to competence or suitability when considering applications for authorisation. That of course is fundamental. Only the regulator can police it effectively. But the criteria must be objective and objectively fair. That is what Amendment No. 83 is all about. It is the first of two amendments to the same aspect of paragraph 5(2)(a), seeking to leave out ““subjective””. It will seem astonishing to a great many people that the grant of authorisations for claims farmers might be on the basis of subjective criteria. As an example, subjective criteria with regard to competence could include authorising all companies that use ““claim”” in their title. Subjective criteria might leave a strong temptation for whoever is going to be the regulator; as we do not yet know, I can make this only as a general point, but it could be a temptation to give in to improper influence. We do not want another ““bungs”” inquiry. Amendment No. 83 probably does not go far enough towards protecting the public; therefore, that is what Amendment No. 84 is all about. As an alternative merely to deleting ““subjective””, the required criteria could be explicitly stated to be objective. In fact, it might be better to set the criteria in the schedule, or at least in regulations. I speak also to Amendment No. 85 because I see no reason to give the regulator discretion to consider relevant matters such as qualifications, financial circumstances or a criminal record. Those must be considered, otherwise the public will continue to be exposed to unscrupulous operators. Amendment No. 86 would broaden the powers of the regulator to require information where a CMC has applied for an authorisation. The three-part list presently in the schedule is reasonably broad, but it seems exclusive rather than inclusive. It seems wholly unnecessary to limit the options in that way. The regulator should be able to require the provision of all information that he or she deems relevant. The argument on Amendment No. 87 is very similar. The present list of categories in paragraph 5(2)(c) is too limited and too prescriptive. That is just one good, specific example of relevant information that might arguably be excluded from the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.