My Lords, we think that this amendment is probably unnecessary. The regulator could not waive unless the Secretary of State had formed a genuine intention to exempt. To have formed an intention to exempt, the Secretary of State must first have informed himself of the circumstances and position of the candidate for exemption. It is also possible that the Secretary of State may wish to exempt without receiving a specific application for exemption from an individual. Where, for example, he is aware that a body should be exempted—such as the statutory ombudsman, which we have discussed—the Secretary of State would not need to require an application.
There is also a problem with the drafting of this amendment, as it applies only to a person and fails to address the position of a class of people. It would be an unreasonable burden, for example—although I know that it is not what the noble Lord wants—to require each individual citizens advice bureau to make a separate application for exemption. In a sense, we think that it is obvious how this would work. For that reason only, I do not accept the amendment.
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 c713 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 16:33:42 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305897
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305897
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305897