I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The amendment would omit the concept of authorisation being waived by the regulator. Our position is that exemptions from the regulatory regime should be very carefully controlled and should not be left to the regulator. This is, I suppose, tied up, in part, with the concept of the regulator needing to be someone entirely independent and sufficiently robust, which the current framework does not yet appear to deliver. Our view is that until we have a clear idea of what kind of regulator we will have, even on an interim basis, we cannot really consider the system of waivers by the regulator without careful checks and controls. Certainly, our preference would be for no waivers and only exemptions by the Lord Chancellor. The Bill does not specify that the regulator should be independent. Without that independence, any system of waivers is open to abuse. That is the last thing we want. In conclusion, I think the whole idea of waivers sends the wrong message, given the conduct of the sector to date.
Compensation Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Wirral
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 December 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c302GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:59:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288804
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288804
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288804