Clause 106
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Brooks Newmark (Braintree, Conservative)
Amendments Nos. 174 to 177, which on the face of it would replace the word “may” with “shall”, are probing amendments to establish how rigorous the approval of the supervisory authority will be, in effect. I am concerned that the word “may” appears many times in this chapter of part 5. The amendments in this group do not include all of them and an awful lot is to be left to regulations.
Approved debt management schemes and the registration of plans are positive in principle, but the detail of the approval mechanism and the rigour to be exercised by the scrutinising authority are a bit vague. That is compounded by the fact that the proposed supervising authority is the Lord Chancellor or his delegates rather than the Office of Fair Trading or the Financial Services Authority. The authority may approve schemes, but it does not have to do so. Regulations, on the other hand,
“may make provision about...conditions that must be met”
before approval. There is a conflict there: may they or must they?
That theme applies also to the registration of plans under clause 115, which states that regulations “may make provision” about either or both of the situations listed. If the need for regulation is anticipated, it should be declared openly. That is the purpose underlying the amendment—to replace some of the “mays” with “shalls”. I apologise to the Committee that I have not managed to identify them all, but I hope that I have managed to make my intentions clear to the Minister. Will she clarify what will and will not be done by the supervising authority, and what will or will not be prescribed in the forthcoming regulations?