Simon
Hughes: On the benefits issue, if somebody holds
themselves up as being able to help a person to get all the benefits
and state compensation to which they are entitled, much as a local
council would do in encouraging people to take up benefit, will they be
covered for everything other than the specific benefits set out in the
regulations?
Bridget
Prentice: My understanding is that they would be covered
only for those matters in the regulations. If others were to be brought
within the scope of the regulations, we would have to have some
evidence that there was a problem.
I do not believe
that the requirement to assess the suitability of the applicant is too
wide. The head of regulation, acting on behalf of the Secretary of
State, will make the assessment based on the criteria outlined in
paragraph 10(2), taking into account other factors listed in paragraph
10(3), and they will need some discretion in order to do
that.
The hon.
Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey asked an interesting question
about individual authorisation, which is important. We based our
decision on proportionality. We often hear from the Opposition the
accusation that we over-regulate—we heard it from the hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk earlier—and this is an attempt to
get the balance right. We want to minimise the burdens on small
businesses and on solicitors, who need to take responsibility. However,
cold calling should not happen—it is banned under the rules, so
that temptation is excluded.
The hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey also asked about supervision, suspension and
cancellation, and the period between the regulator and the tribunal.
Those matters will be covered by the tribunal rules, which are not yet
settled. However, we will consider them carefully and will ensure that
they are no longer than absolutely necessary.
On audited accounts, the
problem is that not all businesses are required to produce them.
However, the regulator would be able to require an authorised person to
provide information, including audited accounts, if he felt that he
needed to be more confident about the financial aspect of the business.
It would be within his power to ask for audited accounts, but that
would be discretionary.
Simon
Hughes: I also asked the Minister about the complaints
handling procedure, which appears to have disappeared from the
requirements.
Bridget
Prentice: I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman on
that. In the Legal Services Bill, it will come under the office for
legal complaints, but in the interim, I will write to him specifically
about why that has dropped out of the system.
These regulations and orders are
another step in our process of protecting consumers. I passionately
believe that the consumer has to be at the heart of the regulatory
process, as the consumer has to be at the heart of legal services, and
the regulations are essential in delivering the statutory framework
that will achieve that aim. I hope that they reflect not only the
Government’s commitment to protecting consumers, but that of
Parliament as whole, and I ask the Committee to approve
them. Question put
and agreed
to. Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Compensation (Claims Management Services)
Regulations 2006.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Compensation (Regulated Claims
Management Services) Order 2006.—[Bridget
Prentice.] Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Compensation (Specification of
Benefits) Order 2006.—[Bridget
Prentice.] Committee
rose at nineteen minutes past Eleven
o’clock.
| 
