Clause 56
Legal Services Bill [Lords]
6:45 pm
John Mann (PPS (Rt Hon Richard Caborn, Minister of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Bassetlaw, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 281, in clause 56, page 31, line 31, at end add—
‘(4) Without prejudice to subsection (2) the Board may, in exceptional circumstances and as a temporary measure, issue an order requiring the approved regulator to comply with the notice or with such directions as would have been contained in the order had a successful application been made.’.
This is a small amendment to assist the Minister in her objectives, and an important one for her to consider. Such circumstances do arise. If we rolled back the clock five or six years and introduced the Bill at a more timely point at the start of the new millennium, the power may well have been of use.
The explanatory statement points out that the amendment
“provides for occasions on which the Board’s power of enforcement proves inadequate, including when it is clear that the failure by an approved regulator to comply with a notice of direction will result in continued adverse impacts on consumers.”
Situations do occur in which action is required and it is being argued whether such action should be taken. Allowing the ability to challenge and re-challenge any direction given might allow those who have done wrong the opportunity to lose files, or delay cases until people who are severely ill become more ill or indeed die.
Such cases might occur, as with industrial diseases. We have seen changes in the law on mesothelioma, an industrial disease. That is perhaps the best example, as it has a remarkably short life expectancy. All that the amendment seeks to do is to give the ability in such exceptional situations to ensure that things move on while they are being debated and finalised, so that justice does not disappear due either to the complainant’s health or to the vanishing of key files while things drag on in the High Court.