Clause 106
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)
He wants some “shalls”, I know that. He wants a lot of “shalls.” I wonder what the collective noun for “shalls” is—a shower of shalls? However by substituting “may” with “shall” in clause 106(1), for instance, which is what amendment No. 174 woulddo, we would end up with the requirement that the supervising authority shall approve one or more debt management schemes, irrespective of whether they are utterly hopeless and inappropriate. That would require the authority to approve one or more schemes but, in truth, it would probably require it to approve all debt management schemes put before it. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Member for Braintree wants.
Under our proposals, seeking approval to operate a scheme with the proposed enhanced powers would be optional. The hon. Gentleman knows that. There is no intention to force operators to offer enhanced schemes; they will have to decide whether they want to do so. There is no certainty about the number of applications for approval that will be received or how many will be judged suitable and how many not. The intention is that the supervising authority will have the power to set conditions that must be met by all scheme operators, so a bedrock of conditions will be laid down. Those conditions will have to be satisfied before a scheme is approved.
Naturally, we intend to consult on the terms of the proposals, including the role of the supervising authority. There is no doubt that there will be a grounding of rules, and all scheme operators will be required to meet them. I expect the rules to be rigorous. Our intention is that schemes will be proper, helpful, well thought through and well worked out, and that they will work for the people who are taken on by them.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman moved on to amendment No. 177.