Lords Chamber

Tuesday 9th December 2025

(began 1 hour, 43 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Neate
-

>> >> Charles >> Charles III, >> Charles III, by >> Charles III, by the >> Charles III, by the grace

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved Mary Jane.

Fiona neat, commander of our most excellent Order of the British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Neate of Hammersmith in our London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Neate to have and to hold unto her for her life. Willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster, the 26th day of November, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I poly Baroness Neate do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to
14:44
None Portrait Oral questions: Price increases by mobile phone and broadband companies Lord Sikka (Labour)
-

by Lord Snape beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name of the Order Paper.
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
None Portrait Oral questions: Tropical Forest Forever Facility Baroness Sheehan (Liberal Democrat)
-

Order, order second oral question Baroness Sheehan.
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Support for victims of sexual violence in the armed services
-

Curran. >> I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, we My Lords, we now My Lords, we now we My Lords, we now we now My Lords, we now we now come My Lords, we now we now come to some instruments previously debated some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Whitehead. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. Question is it the motion that this motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. The Baroness Lloyd of Effra. motion. Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Financial Services and have it. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regulations 2025. And one other Sedgefield. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. En bloc. The question is that the two motions in the name of Lord Wilson of Sedgefield be agreed to. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content, but contents have. It has to be again in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill Lord Hanson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Flint. I beg to move that the House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into a committee on the bill. Question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content.
15:31
15:32
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
>> My Lords. Amendment 289 is a probing amendment through which I'm seeking the government's justification of the substantial justification of the substantial prejudice provision in clause 82. By way of background, clause 82 removes the three year limitation period for personal injury claims in cases relating to child sexual abuse. As such, it implements recommendation 15 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, chaired by professor J. The inquiry found that most personal inquiry claims relating to child sexual abuse are not only modest in value, but in many cases do not result in compensation being paid, and the reason for the high rate of failure is because a significant number of those claims are prevented from ever proceeding as a result of the limitations period.

On bringing forward a claim under the Limitations Act of 1980, that act permits the three year period for claims resulting from sexual abuse as a child to begin from age 18, therefore expiring at 21. But many survivors do not feel comfortable with coming forward and telling people what happened until much later. Never mind gathering the courage to bring forward a lawsuit against their abuser. The result is a lack of justice for those who have been abused as a child. And it is welcome, therefore, that the government have decided to bring this forward.

However, there is a possibility there is possibly an issue with the drafting of inserted section 11ZB in this clause, which establishes the situations in which the court must dismiss an action for injury arising from child sexual abuse. It states that for all future cases brought after the commencements commencement of this clause, the court must dismiss the action. If the defendant can prove that a fair hearing cannot take place. However, for any case which started before this new clause came into force, the test for dismissal is set considerably lower, because in this instance, the court must dismiss the claim if the defendant can prove they would suffer substantial prejudice and thus the proceedings are inequitable.

My Lords, this goes further than was recommended by the J inquiry, the report said. The report said, and I quote, the express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show that a fair trial is not possible, unquote. The only test the independent inquiry wanted was that the test of whether a fair trial can take place, applied to all past and future cases. Now, I know that there is concern that the ability of the court to dismiss actions due to substantial prejudice placed on the defendant will create uncertainty for survivors of child sexual abuse and delay access to justice.

This has the potential to undermine the purpose of the independent inquiry, child sexual abuse recommendation, and might not provide the certainty and support which survivors deserve. So I'll reiterate that this is simply a probing amendment, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could elaborate on why the government have gone further than recommended by the Independent Inquiry for Child Sexual Abuse, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 82,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 82, page 98. Leave out lines three to 11 to 11.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11 to 11. I have an amendment in this group, and may I repeat a declaration of interests. I made declaration of interests. I made Second Reading that I have appeared as a barrister in a number of the leading cases about limitation of
15:35
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
leading cases about limitation of the law of tort. The purpose of limitation periods is to give a claimant a fair chance to decide whether or not to bring a claim, but also to place some sort of time limit on claims. Limitation periods vary according to the cause of action. For example, defamation claims have to be brought within one year. Personal injury claims have always been in a special category. The normal limit is three years. In the case of a young person, three years after attaining the age of majority, but because some personal injuries only manifest themselves some time after they have been caused, particularly disease claims.

For example, the law has responded by postponing the starting date to reflect something called the date of knowledge. What constituted knowledge was difficult to encapsulate in statute and gave rise to a lot of litigation, particularly in the context of what are generally known as historic claims for child sexual abuse. But these difficulties were largely overcome by section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, which gave the court a complete discretion to disapply the limitation period. Although the section gave various sensible guidelines as to matters to be taken into consideration, the discretion was expressed to be entirely unfettered.

One difficulty in the law remained in claims for deliberate acts of assault. There was a finite six year limitation period, rather than a three year extendable limit for claims in negligence, so some claimants did not have the advantage of section 33. This problem was overcome by the decision of a V Corps in 2008. I was one of the unsuccessful defendants in that case, when the House of Lords decided that whether the claim was in negligence or in assault, there was still a discretion to disapply the limitation period.

The only question that remained was whether it would ever be too late to bring a claim in the light of section 33, Lord Browne of Eaton under Heywood, a member of your Lordships' House, and one much missed made this observation, and I quote, if a complaint has been made and recorded, and more obviously still, if the accused has been convicted of the abuse complained of, that would be one thing. If, however, a complaint comes out of the blue with no apparent support for it, other than perhaps the alleged abuser has been accused or even convicted of similar abuse in the past, that would be quite another thing.

By no means everyone who brings a late claim for damages for sexual abuse, however genuine his complaint may in fact can reasonably expect the court to exercise a section 33 discretion in his favour. On the contrary, a fair trial which must surely include a fair opportunity for the defendant to investigate the allegations, is in many cases likely to be found quite simply impossible. That passage was in fact referred to in the conclusions of IICSA, who decided that there should be a removal of the three year period, but that it should be inverted.

Commas express protection of the right to a fair trial, with the burden falling on defendants to show a fair trial is not possible. Now. The government responded to IICSA report, and they did not support getting rid of limitation. The government acknowledged the importance of section 33 and made this point, and I quote a limitation period. Also encouraged discourages disputes to be resolved timeously, thus promoting finality and certainty. Both are key cornerstones of the legal system. As such, the government's position ahead of the consultation was that it does not support this option, nor did it support a special limit for claims arising from sexual abuse.

I would also remind the House that in 2017, in the case of Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Carroll, the Court of Appeal emphasised the unfettered nature of the section 33 discretion. My question to the government at Second Reading was essentially this what cases does it envisage would now be allowed to proceed, which would not have done under the current law? I did not expect an immediate answer, but the government has now had plenty of time to consider its response. There was a consultation following the government's then response I referred to was not particularly large and did not contain very consistent answers.

Changing the law of limitation is best. An exercise following the careful balancing of respective interests, perhaps by the Law Commission. What appears to have happened here is that the government, notwithstanding the initial view that I refer to, has decided to come up with some sort of compromise, and in doing so, I fear of produced in clause 82, a real dog's dinner of a provision. It is headed removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases, but it does not do that.

It also specifically provides that sexual abuse is in a separate category from, for example, physical abuse. Although this was precisely what the government did not want when they responded to the original recommendations. It contains also a rather unclear provision that when a dispute has been settled, it would no longer be subject to these new provisions. It probably does not include discontinued claims or claims settled otherwise than by way of a formal agreement. It contains 11 ZB, some very unclear provisions as to the circumstances in which the court can dismiss an action, while at the same time containing in Subclause two the provision that the court must dismiss the action if the defendant satisfy the court that it is not possible for a fair hearing to take place.

The interrelationship of clause two and three is incoherent and will inevitably result in litigation. The lack of clarity as to what is or is not sexual abuse, and what is or is not settlement will, I fear, also give rise to litigation? I agree with the Frontbenches probing amendment that we should get rid of clause subclause three of 11 ZB, but that would leave in what is really a repetition of what the law is anyway, and would not deal with the points about what constitutes sexual abuse or settlement by agreement.

My conclusion, my Lords, is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the law as it is, and this rather messy compromise is going to give rise to unnecessary litigation. And I am unsure it's going to provide remedies where remedies are not already available. Sexual abuse, particularly of children, is abhorrent, and we now know that there has been far more of it than was originally perceived. It is, however, important to point out that the claims are not usually made against the individual perpetrator.

I can understand why there wouldn't be much sympathy for a claim being brought, however, late against such a perpetrator, the usual defendant is, say, a school or a religious organisation, a local authority or even central government who may or may not have any knowledge of what happened. But because of the expanded doctrine of vicarious liability, will be deemed in law to be responsible for what occurred. They may or may not be covered by insurance. As Lord Browne pointed out, there will come a time where it quite simply is inappropriate, many years later, for claims to be brought before the court.

So, however sympathetic one is to the victims of sexual abuse, the law currently caters adequately for the balance between the interests of claimants and defendants. If we include section 82 in the bill, I fear we will make Bad Law clause. The clause should stand part here. Thank you.
15:44
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page