My Lords, as the noble Lord pointed out, as drafted, the issue is not the residence of the client but the location of where the claim would be litigated. The amendment has the effect of restricting regulation only to claims services provided to people who are resident in England and Wales. That is not what we are seeking to do. I know what the noble Lord is driving at underneath that; it is important and we talked at some length in Grand Committee about some of the issues that the noble Lord raised. As I said then, if the company is providing any kind of claim management in England and Wales it has to be authorised to do so. If it is not authorised it commits an offence. Then the issue becomes one of enforcement. We allow the regulator to take enforcement action if a claims management company is advertising or offering claims management services but is not authorised to do so. That is the offence in Clause 9.
If the company is based outside England and Wales, enforcement could involve extradition proceedings. That depends on whether we have an arrangement with the country concerned and whether the offence and conduct involved fall within the applicable schemes. Noble Lords will know that these exist particularly between the UK and most European countries, the Commonwealth and the USA. We would argue that extradition is clearly a last resort. The co-operation of other providers is vital in ensuring that regulation of this sector is effective in protecting consumers. A claims management company operating offshore but providing services to consumers in England and Wales would fall within the jurisdiction of English law and could be prosecuted under this Bill provided they were within the jurisdiction of our courts. This could happen either by the service provider voluntarily submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the English courts or, as I said, by the process of extradition.
I am quite interested in how some of the issues reach across the work on civil justice that we are doing with our colleagues in the European Union. This has not come up in any of the discussions that we have had but I increasingly think that it might be something that we will want to begin to raise. That is the current position. I am very mindful of what the noble Lord seeks to do and we are in discussions, as part of the work of the ministerial group, about some of these issues more widely across government. I hope that that gives the noble Lord at least the beginning of an answer for now.
Compensation Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c688-9 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 16:47:44 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305849
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305849
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305849