Compensation Bill [HL]

My Lords, we welcome the amendment. Nobody on these Benches is in favour of diluting the arms-length principle or of a general arrogation of power to Ministers, but the question of exemptions is highly sensitive and tricky. I am sure that this is a move in the right direction. This is probably now a matter for rules and regulations derived from this legislation, but I restate my hope that exemptions will as a rule be granted only to those individuals and companies that are regulated to a standard that is equivalent to, or higher than, the standards imposed by the new regulator that we are creating under the Bill. I know that Ministers have it in mind to exempt, inter alia, trade unions, but I hope that these powers will be used sparingly at most and that Ministers will bear in mind the conclusions of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in its recent report. The committee stated:"““We do not see any benefit in that approach””—" that is, the possibility of exempting certain types of organisation such as trade unions from regulation—"““since all claimants should have protection and the opportunity of redress, where malpractice has occurred . . . If organisations are convinced that they already meet the necessary standards and sign up to the proposed Code of Conduct, then they should not have to incur any substantial additional costs””" The committee concluded:"““We would expect that trade union services would be able to comply with any regulatory regime without any difficulty””." The Minister knows that I am not talking about bona fide trade unions, but evidence was given to the all-party group that one claims farmer had set up a trade union to take advantage of the exemption. I am still concerned about that. I hope that she will bear it in mind. On Question, amendment agreed to.