Compensation Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the opportunity to discuss many of these issues. On Amendment No. 36, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I know that he recognises the importance that we attach to ensuring that individuals are captured. I hope he will recognise that, in two or three of the amendments that we talked to earlier today, we have clarified our intention for authorisation in a way that will reassure him. As I said earlier, we envisage that entities will be authorised as either individuals, partnerships or companies. Where a partnership or company is authorised, the controlling individuals within that partnership or company will be assessed for their competence and suitability to provide the authorised services. The amendment is unnecessary as Amendment No. 35 already requires the regulator to be satisfied of the applicant’s competence and suitability, and requires the regulator to apply the criteria specified in regulations for that purpose. On Amendment No. 37, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seeks to cover areas which we believe are already caught by one or more of the headings that we have specified in Amendment No. 35. I have not been able to establish a relevant professional or business misconduct which would not fall either within sub-paragraph (c)(iii),"““proceedings of a body exercising functions in relation to a trade or profession””," or relate to criminal and other court proceedings. I was nervous about accepting this amendment because the wording is quite broad, and we do not want to give the regulator open discretion in any activity that appears to him to amount to misconduct. It is better that we stick within the objective criteria. If the noble Lord can think of something that is not covered, I would be more than happy to discuss that with him. That is the basis of rejecting the amendment, and not because I disagree at all with the spirit of it. On Amendment No. 38, as my noble friend Lord Borrie has indicated, we are looking at the research, and have just had the early result in. To correct by noble friend—he will not mind—we plan to have the research available to your Lordships before Third Reading because we thought you would want to see that. I hope that this will be before April. That is the only difference, and I apologise to my noble friend. That is the decision I have taken, and it is important that we do that. As my noble friend said, we want to look carefully at the findings. The intention is to present the research to the code-owning bodies, the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice, so that they can judge whether changes to the advertising codes would be necessary or appropriate. The Department for Constitutional Affairs does not plan to legislate on advertising, other than to ensure that the rules governing the activities of persons authorised to provide claims management services place those persons under a duty to market their services responsibly. To breach the rules would be a conduct issue, much as solicitors are covered. If the ASA has upheld a complaint about an advertisement placed by an authorised person, this would likely lead to a disciplinary investigation by the regulator. I hope this will address those particular concerns. As for hospitals, my honourable friends in the ministerial group are looking at this issue in the context of the health service. On Amendment No. 39, again I found myself in agreement with the spirit of what the noble Lord is saying, but we think we have adequately covered this by amending the criteria for designating the regulator to include particular reference to the provision of information about charges and other matters. As I have indicated, the Government see this as a guiding principle of regulation. I hope I have addressed all the points that noble Lords raised, and that they feel able to withdraw their amendments while I move mine.