Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 23:"Page 4, line 41, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—" (4A)   On an application by the Regulator a judge of the High Court, Circuit judge or justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising the Regulator to enter and search premises on which a person conducts or is alleged to conduct regulated claims management business, for the purposes of investigating whether an offence has been committed under this Part. (4B)   The Regulator may take copies of written or electronic records found on a search by virtue of subsection (4A) for a purpose specified in subsection (3)(a) or (b). (4C)   In subsections (4) to (4B) a reference to the Regulator includes a reference to a person authorised by him in writing.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 58, 59 and 61. They respond to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Grand Committee, regarding enforcement actions, specifically the power to enter and search premises of both authorised claims management companies and those suspected of undertaking regulated claims management services. As promised, I have given further consideration to the need to have a power in the Bill for a warrant to enter and search. It is our intention to include in regulations to be made under Clause 7 a range of safeguards that will be in line with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The intention was to include a specific requirement for the regulator to obtain a warrant before enforcing enter-and-search powers. The amendments that I have tabled place this requirement on the face of the Bill. Any enforcement action must be proportionate to the need to combat offences under the Act. That, of course, includes that there is sufficient evidence to support the proposed course of action. In all cases of suspected improprieties, regulations will make it clear what steps the regulator must take to ensure that the power is not exercised arbitrarily. He will seek to work with the organisation under scrutiny, encouraging it to release information on a voluntary basis before other avenues are considered. Reasonable timetables will be set for documentary evidence to be produced, with the option of extension in exceptional circumstances; for example, where the individual under investigation is away or unavailable. Only if those steps fail or if it is suspected that evidence could be changed or destroyed would a search warrant be sought. Amendment No. 23 permits the regulator or person acting under his authority to apply for a warrant from a judge of the High Court, circuit judge or justice of the peace. Regulations will set out the extent of the evidence and the background circumstances necessary to support an application for a warrant. Regulations will limit the exercise of powers of entry and search by, for example, requiring that a search is undertaken at a reasonable hour, that evidence of identity is provided and that written details of any documents copied or seized during the search are given. Authority will not be given to search any residential premises unless they are also used as a business address for the authorised person. Amendments Nos. 58 to 61 put in place similar requirements for those already authorised when the regulator is investigating a complaint or assessing compliance with terms and conditions of authorisation. However, in that situation the regulator will already have considerable leverage in obtaining information. His records of authorisation and the rules and codes of practice that all authorised persons will be required to comply with will contain the requirement to provide documentation to such scrutiny as the regulator requires. Amendment No. 59 would also allow the regulator, in cases of serious misconduct, to impose conditions on, suspend or cancel a person’s authorisation. I hope that these amendments and the safeguards provide the reassurance that the noble Lord was seeking. I beg to move.