Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 93:"Page 10, line 11, at end insert—" ““(1)   Regulations shall make, or shall require the Regulator to make, provision about the fees charged by an authorised person for the provision of claims management services. (2)   Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) shall in particular provide that— (a)   any fee to be charged shall be clearly identified at the outset of the claim; (b)   any fee structure will be clearly explained so that the claimant is aware of all charges that he will be expected to meet; (c)   any advertised service that is described as free to the claimant or free in certain circumstances must not result in some charge being made in any circumstances, unless the advertised service also describes clearly what if any charges a claimant may be expected to meet and the circumstances in which those charges will arise; (d)   where an alternative service is or may be available without charge, any information given by an authorised person shall so state clearly and unambiguously.”” The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of detailed insertions after Clause 10 to deal with certain areas that should be the subject of any rules on professional contact—with stress on both the words ““professional”” and ““conduct””. The amendment deals with transparency of charges, but is also intended to tackle the proliferation of CMCs offering services to claimants when an alternative free service is available. The Minister knows that I feel strongly about that. New subsections (2)(a) and (b) require up-front transparency of charges. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report to which I have previously referred, No Win, No Fee, No Chance, made it plain that that is a real problem area for consumers and a focus for many of the thousands of complaints that its member bureaux had received about the CFA’s generally. We ought to set out equally clearly how we expect the regulator to perform on those matters in the text of the Bill, because this is not an area where the needs of the new regime are likely to change with time. New subsection (2)(c) addresses a particular problem in this field, where claimants believe that the services that they are being offered are either free or free until the happening of some contingency. Experience and various surveys by citizens advice bureaux, and so on, show that claimants have a poor understanding of the impact of charges in such circumstances. No win, no fee sounds free but it is not always so, especially when you win. New subsection (2) (d) makes a particular point about services offered when there are free alternatives. This is all about creating a level playing field. Solicitors are already required to explore such options, and regulation by the Financial Services Authority requires assessment of demands and needs to the same effect. Members of the Committee on all sides and many others have repeatedly made the point that those services are targeted at vulnerable people. I hope that the Minister will therefore understand why I believe that such robust, clear protection is long overdue. I beg to move.