John
Mann: The Minister did not quite answer my point about
whether direction will be given to the regulator to take into
consideration the Law Society’s policy decisions made over the
past couple of years that have implications for claims
handlers.
Bridget
Prentice: I will certainly consider that. One of the
problems regarding the extent of an investigation in the transition
period is that there might not be appropriate records of any action
taken by the claims management company, but I shall certainly consider
the Law Society’s role and whether we need to make anything
clearer so that the aspect that my hon. Friend rightly raises can be
covered in the
transition.
Mr.
Heald: Having considered the Minister’s response, I
think that it is right to reflect further on the matter, so I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Simon
Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 4, page
3, line 11, and end insert ‘, and
ensuring maximum clarity and simplicity of all relevant
documents,'. This
is a very simple amendment to try to ensure that the regulator, if we
are to have one, does the most important job of all, which is to ensure
that anybody providing information provides it as clearly as possible.
We all spend our lives complaining that anything that is or could be
legal or results in a right, an entitlement, a claim, an action or
damages is often governed by small print. That is the bugbear of
insurance policies: people claim insurance and are suddenly told,
“I’m sorry, you’re excluded,” because of
the small print. I
want to ensure that we say as clearly as possible that the documents
that issue from the industry should have the maximum clarity and
simplicity. It is a sort of plain English request, and the amendment
would ensure that it happens. There is a terrible danger when we get
into the bureaucracy that a regulator concerned about regulating the
things that matter behind the scenes will not be concerned about
creating simple processes.
If bright and rich people are
caught by people trying to flog claims, they will survive relatively
untrammelled: the financial consequences will be less serious for them,
and they will be able to cope. If they are very bright, it is on their
own head. The people whom we need to protect are the vulnerable: those
who are not so bright, and certainly not rich, who discover that they
have been caught out.
I hope that the Minister,
whether or not she accepts the exact wording, will accept the burden of
the case behind the amendment and will consider putting similar wording
into the Bill. I am not one of those who seeks to make Bills longer
rather than shorter, but it must be a clear duty. We are concerned that
the industry should tell people what it means so that they can
understand it and there is no
confusion.
Mr.
Heald: I have some sympathy with the amendment. It is
obviously a good idea that there
should be as much clarity as possible, and simplicity is always a good
thing. I am put in mind of the new Coroners Bill, the draft of which
has been published with a plain English explanation next to the legal
provisions. We should try to encourage things to be written in a way
that people can understand.
If claims handlers have a role,
part of that role is access to justice: explaining to people who might
not realise it that they have a claim. There have been plenty of
examples of that not being done in a straightforward way, and I am one
of the first to say that the area should be properly regulated, but if
claims handlers are talking to, communicating with or giving documents
to people, it is a good idea for those documents to be simple and
straightforward and to have the clarity suggested by the hon.
Gentleman.
Bridget
Prentice: I have every sympathy with the amendment. I
totally agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey
on the principle behind his amendment. I do not think, though, that it
is necessary to put it into the
Bill. The regulator is
required under clause 4(2)(c) to promote the interests of persons using
regulated claims management services. The provision implicitly includes
advice and guidance for those wishing to pursue a compensation claim in
the regulated areas. It is right that consumers have clear and relevant
information on the claims process and what they can expect from
authorised persons.
We will produce a leaflet aimed
at those using claims management services. It will be written in plain
and unambiguous terms, clearly setting out the obligations of those
working in the regulated areas to provide details of the standard of
services that they will provide. The leaflet will also include
information on charges, cooling-off periods and consumers’
routes of redress if they have any cause for complaint. We also intend
that the authorised persons should provide information and documents
that are clear and easy to understand. The model rules that we
published in March state that all information given to the client
should be clear, transparent, fair and not
misleading. The hon.
Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey raised the issue of plain
English, and I totally endorse it. We all support the example that the
hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire gave of a plain English
explanatory note to the Coroners Bill, and that is what we want in all
our communication with the public, so that the legal system and legal
services are more accessible to them.
I hope that hon. Members agree
that the draft regulations already sent to them are a good example of
plain English. Having said that, I have made the regulations a hostage
to fortune, and someone will find some gobbledegook in the middle of
them and come back to me about it. I endorse the principle behind the
amendment, but the Bill does not need it and I ask the hon. Gentleman
to withdraw it.
Simon
Hughes: In a moment when I have nothing better to do, I
shall look at the rules to see if I can find anything, and if I do, I
shall bring it to the Minister’s attention. I accept her
statement that absolute clarity is dealt with in the rules. Without
troubling her to rise
again, when the regulator is set up, which might be in the Department at
first, will she be kind enough to write to them pointing out that the
issue was raised and that she, on behalf of the Government, supported
the view that there should be clarity? With that additional authority
on behalf of the Committee and the Government, I am very happy to beg
to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in clause 4, page
3, line 18, at end
insert— ‘(d) is
independent of any provider of claims management
services,'. I shall
be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the
amendment.
Bridget
Prentice: Again, I very much accept the principle that the
hon. Gentleman advocates in the amendment. The regulator should have
some independence from the industry that is being regulated, and that
would apply if the power to designate an existing body as a regulator
was used. The existing provision, subsection (2)(b), is an adequate
safeguard. We must retain the flexibility to designate a regulator, and
in the longer term, there might be a body that is suitable for that
designation. As we said during an earlier debate, once the legal
services board is set up and the power to designate a regulator is
transferred to it, there might be an opportunity to designate a
regulator. I support the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I could not agree
more that commercial interests should not influence the regulator, but
the existing requirement to avoid conflicts of interest will ensure
that and provide clear consumer protection. On that basis, I hope that
the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Heald: I welcome that assurance, and it is good that the
Minister has put it on the record. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon
Hughes: I have one question to put to the Minister. I am
conscious that we are coming to the end of our enthralled attention to
the matter for the day. It is a question that I might have asked under
the previous clause but can equally well ask under this one. I am happy
for the Minister to reply
later. The Minister
identified the five areas that the regulator will be asked to regulate
on. I listed them earlier. Will she ensure that they use the same
definitions as solicitors have to use when they advertise their
business? Nowadays solicitors can advertise. They do so by category of
subject: welfare law, housing law, employment law and so on. Can we
ensure that there is consistency of definition, so that if there is a
claims regulation business to do with, for example, employment or
criminal injuries compensation, it uses the same list of services that
one can find among the list of services that solicitors offer? That may
need negotiation with the Law Society. I am not sure whether the
society is governed by regulation on how legal services are advertised.
It seems to me that there is logic in having consistency between the
two.
Bridget
Prentice: Responding to that question gives me
the opportunity to introduce my friend Mrs. McGlumshie. Officials will
have heard me speak of her. She does not exist and is a figment of my
imagination but becomes very alive when officials use language that I
do not think she would appreciate. In response to what the hon.
Gentleman said, if we can get consistency between what is in the Bill
and what is put on advertising services, we will work towards that. I
will ask the Law Society to discuss with us how we can do
that. This has been
an important debate. It is an important part of the Bill. It sets up a
system that will give consumers the confidence and the redress that
they need where claims management goes wrong. I am sure that every
Member on the Committee will endorse the fact that we are moving in the
right direction in putting the consumer at the heart of the redress
system. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Michael
Foster.] Adjourned
accordingly at eighteen minutes toFour o’clock till
Tuesday 27 June at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
