---

Compensation (Claims Management Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

I thank both noble Lords for the general welcome they have given to these regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that this provision was much needed, and the indications are that it has been effective. I know I was not present during the debate, but I was part of the ministerial group considering what is loosely called the ““compensation culture”” issue. The Committee will know that during the work undertaken by central government it was difficult to find absolute proof of a compensation culture, but the problem is that there is such a perception. I hope that the necessary regulation of the services is but one element in changing that general perception. I always welcome the pithy comments of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I have noted what he said about large teams and weak cases. I am glad to have the support of my colleagues behind me, but I think the case is pretty strong. He pressed me to define what ““later this week”” means in Ministry of Justice terms. He knows that this is a matter that I have resisted and will continue to resist, but I will ensure that both noble Lords receive the report as soon as it is published. Should we be so unkind as to publish it on Friday, if he lets me know where his holiday home is, we will guarantee to send it to him so that he can thoroughly enjoy his holiday. Regarding the minimum terms, in my opening remarks I read out—or at least referred to—the list of organisations that have been consulted. The general view is that the minimum terms are satisfactory. There was always a balance here between increasing cost and better regulation. That is why a proportionate approach has been taken and the decision was made to identify only part of the business that is to be covered by the current provisions. The other point to make to the noble Lord is that discussions with insurers and insurance brokers have indicated that a number of insurers will be able to provide cover exceeding the minimum terms as well. Those terms were adjusted in the light of the conclusions of the independent insurance report and the consultation exercise to make sure that the requirement does not impact disproportionately on small businesses. We have attempted to strike the right balance. The noble Lord is right about the power of entry. The power under the current law enables records to be taken, photocopied and returned. It does not advance the law further than that. Regarding professional indemnity and the RIA, the provisions before the Committee do not go outwith the original work that was undertaken under the RIA. The RIA did not cover a detailed cost-benefit analysis of this requirement, but what is being done is entirely consistent with the conclusions of that RIA. On Question, Motion agreed to.