Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 27:"Page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (c)." The noble Lord said: I have been sitting here silently for the last five or six hours. Now that we have reached Part 2 the time has come for me to speak again. I should make it absolutely clear that we strongly support the principle of regulation of businesses providing claims management services. There are clearly abuses here which need the firm hand of regulation. We shall do all we can to assist in achieving that result. There are a number of matters in the Bill—mainly, though not all of them, of detail—which in our view need explanation or cause some concern. As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has criticised severely the Bill. The Minister said at Second Reading that she will consider how to meet the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee. I would like to know whether she plans to bring forward any amendments. If so, when are we likely to see them? If she is not planning to do so, is that not in effect rejecting the proposals of the Select Committee? In moving Amendment No. 27 I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 77. This is not among the most important groups of amendments tabled by us. Amendment No. 27 is a probing amendment. The effect of these amendments is to remove all provisions from the Bill that relate to the waiver of authorisation. My question is why is a waiver necessary? Clause 2 provides for a ban on the provision of services unless the provider is authorised or exempt or has received a waiver. The exemption is provided for in Clause 4 and, under subsection (2) of that clause, the exemption can be given,"““by a specified person or a class of person, in specified circumstances, or by a specified person or class of person in specified circumstances””." That seems to cover every possibility. Why, then, is it necessary to provide in paragraph 3 of the schedule for waiver as well, and what exactly is the distinction between exemption and waiver? Can it not be left out to make the Bill a little bit simpler so that we stick with two categories of authorisation or exemption? I beg to move.