Compensation Bill [HL]

There is so much to ponder and consider. This has been a very helpful debate in raising some of the more general issues that we will confront in specific examples as we move through Part 2 of the Bill. I would just say to my noble friend Lord Eccles that in many ways the abuses are already documented. They really make people feel that the shortfall, to which they are rightly entitled, is a windfall and fail to ensure they are aware that it is compensation designed to bridge the gap between the endowment policy proceeds and the sum required to pay off the mortgage. By depicting it as a windfall, the companies in question feel that they can legitimately charge up to 25 per cent plus VAT. They fail to make people aware that there is a completely free service where a valid claim is dealt with within eight weeks. A letter needs to be sent giving details and then a cheque arrives within eight weeks. It is a fast procedure set up with the co-operation of the individual companies. It is these abuses which prevent the individual receiving the compensation to which he is rightly entitled to cover that shortfall. There are a number of other abuses, not least failing to ensure that the individual is aware of the free service that is available through the Financial Services Ombudsman. There are a number of others. I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the Minister’s commitment to deal effectively with this problem and to write to us with further details. There will be a lot of further debate about this when we return after the Recess, but I think we have made a very good start. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.