Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not believe that any distinct analysis has been made of that issue, but the noble and learned Lord will be well aware that the problem of recovering financial penalties is hardly limited to people who have gone to Poland or the Netherlands. There is a far more fundamental problem with recovering financial penalties within the United Kingdom. That is much greater in its extent and impact on the sentencing policies of the courts than that of the few people who move abroad after a financial penalty has been imposed and not paid. Of course we are looking at the whole area of sentencing policy with regard to the issue of short-term sentences, and we can only encourage the courts to move away from them in circumstances where they have confidence in the imposition of non-custodial sentences, which of course include community orders and financial orders. I would suggest that this is a relatively small aspect of a bigger problem, but I acknowledge the bigger problem. It is one that requires to be analysed fully as we take forward our sentencing policy.

That takes me neatly or otherwise on to the final point, which is the question of taking into account prior convictions. Just to be clear: this regulation addresses the question of what the court does once it has the information and the data. Indeed, the question of data transfer is, I am pleased to say, a matter for Home Office Ministers.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My noble and learned friend speaks for the Government.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Whip has just reminded me that I speak for the Government. Of course I do—with relish. Be that as it may, Home Office Ministers have in fact already brought forward an SI on plans to deal with the transfer of data under the ECR and that has already been debated and approved. But perhaps it is more important to point out that, with regard to the transfer of data concerning previous convictions, that can be secured under a European Council directive and therefore there remains a mechanism by which we can address the matter. The information flows will remain and travel under the mutual legal assistance convention of the European Council.

I come now to the purpose of the regulation itself. Under the existing European directive, the courts are bound to take account of a previous conviction in another member state. That is implemented by way of Section 143(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In the event that we are looking at convictions that occurred in a non-EU member state, the courts have a discretion to have regard to that previous conviction pursuant to Section 143(5) of the 2003 Act. The point that this regulation addresses is that, if we cease to be an EU member, we are no longer tied into the scheme for EU member states pursuant to Section 143(2) of the 2003 Act, but of course we will remain in a position to deal with this as a discretionary matter, as we would with other third-party countries.

The point of this regulation is simply that there is no logical reason for treating one set of third-party countries differently from another set: that is why the regulation brings the position with the EU 27 states into line in the event that we leave without a deal. That is what we are seeking to address, but I underline the point I made in my opening speech that this regulation is not to do with the transfer of data or access to information but with how the courts deal with it once they actually have that data or information. I hope that that covers all the points that have been raised by noble Lords.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I remind all Members of the Committee that it is a convention that a noble Lord does not intervene if they were not here at the start of the debate.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, that is a completely inappropriate intervention. My noble friend was not present at the beginning of the debate because he was in the Chamber debating no-deal regulations. It is the Government’s fault that no-deal regulations were being debated in the Grand Committee and in the Chamber at the same time.

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL]

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

My Lords, this amendment would ensure that within three years of the coming into force of the Act the Lord Chancellor must arrange for a review of the impact of the implementation of its provisions, including provisions within what would by then be Section 3 and the Schedule. The report would have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. We should bear in mind the potential perils of justice reforms without sufficient research, consultation and subsequent evaluation.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me reminding your Lordships’ House of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The Public Accounts Committee made clear that, in bringing forward that legislation, the Ministry of Justice had not properly assessed the full impact of those reforms. That impact has proved devasting for some of the most vulnerable in our society who, as a result of that reform and those cuts, have almost been shut out altogether from the legal aid system of which we were once so very proud.

We are still awaiting the much-anticipated review of the operation of LASPO required after three to five years of implementation in 2013. The hope for the many thousands of people who have been locked out of our justice system due to the withdrawal of legal aid is that a sober assessment of LASPO might precipitate reform and recognition of the need to reverse some of the more destructive elements of that legislation. The Bach commission report—conducted by my noble friend Lord Bach—made many recommendations for reform, but we continue to wait for the Government to deliver on that statutory obligation to review and report.

The fact that the LASPO review has been delayed makes such mechanisms no less vital. For the same reasons of accountability and adequate evaluation of reform, we are seeking to ensure that this Government are obliged to assess and report on the impact of the reforms to our court system proposed by the Bill. The Bar Council has also expressed support for this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to arrange a review of the impact of the authorised staff provisions within a period of three years of the Act coming into force. As the impact assessment for these measures states, we will work closely with the rule committees and the senior judiciary to monitor the impact of any future assignment of functions and responsibilities to authorised staff. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is also committed to evaluating and testing the impacts of the reforms to courts and tribunals.

As noble Lords will be aware, the majority of the authorised staff provisions in the Bill are not new. Within the civil and tribunals jurisdictions, and in the magistrates’ courts and family court, staff can already be authorised to undertake a variety of judicial case management responsibilities. The exercise of judicial functions by staff is already kept under review. For example, earlier this year HMCTS conducted a review of the work of tribunal caseworkers two years after the role was created. We would expect the rule committees and the senior judiciary to continue to keep these provisions under review across the jurisdictions as they feel necessary, drawing on their relevant expertise to do so. We would expect the rule committee meeting minutes where authorised staff are discussed to be published where it is in the public interest to do so.

Where we are extending these provisions to a new jurisdiction—namely, the Crown Court—we expect the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to conduct a review along the lines of those undertaken in other jurisdictions. It is right that the committee conducts the review; it is independent of government and its membership includes judges, lawyers who practise regularly in criminal courts and representatives of voluntary organisations with a direct interest in the work of the criminal courts. It is therefore very well placed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, asked for more information about recent reforms. We are already committed to evaluating and testing the impact of our wider package of reforms to the courts and tribunals system. That evaluation will be published in due course.

The amendment is at best an unnecessary duplication of effort and resources. I hope I have been able to provide the noble Baroness with the appropriate assurance that the authorised staff provisions will continue to be kept under review in all jurisdictions. I trust that she will now feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. I am grateful that there is a continuing commitment to evaluate such reforms in future, notwithstanding the lack of evaluation of LASPO to date. Once more I feel that the fact that she has made that commitment in your Lordships’ House should give me and others some assurance, and we must make sure that we follow up on that assurance in due course. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as a former judge of the family court, I wonder in what circumstances such judges—district judges, circuit judges or even possibly High Court judges—might need the advice of those who were not themselves qualified lawyers. I find that difficult. I see no difficulty with justices of the peace—that is perfectly obvious—but at the moment I cannot see how any family court judge, at any level, should be advised on legal issues by someone who is not legally qualified. I would be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining what he sees this applying to, and in what circumstances.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, these amendments relate to two elements of the Bill. Amendments 3 and 4 require that any authorised person who gives legal advice to lay judges or judges of the family court must be legally qualified and have more than three years’ experience post-qualification. Amendment 6 makes the same requirement of staff carrying out judicial functions.

The qualifications for staff giving legal advice have been set out in regulations since 1979. They remain substantively the same today: broadly, one must be a barrister or solicitor or have passed the necessary exams to become one. The qualifications will continue to be set out in regulations and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We are not proposing any changes to that process. Allowing qualifications to be set out in regulations has not resulted in a lowering or lessening of this bar. Amendments 3 and 4 would, however, raise it to a height that is unnecessary and could adversely impact on the diversity of legal experience in our courts.

In our draft regulations, which we published ahead of Committee stage, we are proposing to take the opportunity to modernise the qualifications required for legal advisers by adding to those eligible to give legal advice fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEx—and those who have passed the necessary exams to be fellows. The addition of CILEx fellows highlights the danger of all three of these amendments. Prescribing qualifications on the face of the Bill means that, should an alternative route to legal qualification emerge, adding this qualification to these provisions could only be achieved through primary legislation.

I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about Amendment 3. One might be in a circumstance where a judge would need advice from somebody with less than three years’ qualification. It may be exceptional—for example, a judge might reasonably ask for advice on procedure. Legal advisers must know, understand and apply the law, and advise judges and magistrates accordingly. The bar we have had in place for almost 40 years has worked perfectly well, and our current legal advisers are providing an excellent service.

Requiring three years’ post-qualification experience would restrict the avenues through which people can qualify as lawyers and would also exclude experienced legal advisers. Amendment 6 takes a similarly one-size-fits-all approach, but for the qualifications needed for staff to exercise judicial functions. The difficulty with this is that it does not allow for a variety of qualifications to mirror the variety of tasks that staff may carry out. I stress that the exercise of judicial functions by authorised staff is not new anywhere but in the Crown Court. Courts and tribunals staff already carry out judicial functions in the Court of Appeal, magistrates’ courts and family courts, as do registrars and caseworkers in the tribunals. Some of these staff are legally qualified; others are not. For example, there are specialist registrars in some of the tribunals, such as the tax tribunal, where tax specialists are not legally qualified. Their qualifications depend on the work they are carrying out—as in any job—and many of them already exercise the jurisdiction of our courts on a daily basis.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Keen said in Committee, the kinds of tasks authorised staff already carry out—and could undertake more of in future—are largely preparatory or interlocutory. These staff support the progression of cases: getting things ready for court and working out what the court should do. Their work will ensure that hearings and trials are as effective as they can be and that our courts, tribunals and resources are put to best use.

Perhaps that goes some way to answering the question from my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier about the sorts of roles these authorised members of staff will undertake. It is right that we have sought to carve out those roles that we feel they should not undertake. However, the number of roles they could undertake is extremely broad. The level of qualification that staff need should vary according to the work they do. The Bill allows the procedure rule committees to set the requirements as to the qualifications or experience of authorised staff exercising judicial functions. This is the right approach. The committees are best placed to assess the requirements for their jurisdictions in light of the functions that they permit authorised staff to carry out.

Amendment 6 would require that someone carrying out the simplest of tasks, such as changing the start time of a hearing, must be a qualified and experienced lawyer. This is plainly unnecessary. The judiciary is ultimately responsible for authorising court and tribunal staff to exercise judicial functions, and will do so only if satisfied of their competence. An applicant’s formal qualifications will be checked before appointment, and their judgment, skills and knowledge assessed by a supervising judge or senior lawyer before any authorisation can take place.

For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL]

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 10th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Marks. I remind the House that I have a parental interest in these matters in that my daughter is a barrister and sits as a part-time district judge. We support the amendment, particularly because of the concern about both gender and ethnic representation in the judicial system, which is currently well below what should be expected.

I have only one reservation about the amendment, which is that it calls for a report to be laid within a year of the Act passing. That does not seem to be a reasonably long enough period in which to judge the extent to which progress is being made. I would have thought that if the Government were disposed to accept the principle here, and I hope they would be, a more realistic period of two to three years would be one in which we would be able to genuinely measure whether there was an impact that all of us around the House would wish to see. Subject to that, we certainly support the principles of the amendment and I hope the Government will look at it sympathetically.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess and report on the impact on judicial diversity of the measures before noble Lords today.

The judiciary already has wide powers to deploy judges between jurisdictions in our courts and tribunals. The judicial deployment measures in the Bill are intended to amend existing legislation in specific areas to enhance these powers to ensure that judges continue to be deployed where needed and appropriate. Being able to make the best use of judges’ time and expertise to react to changes in case loads of different jurisdictions has benefits for all court and tribunal users.

The measures are targeted to specified judicial roles and are intended to fill gaps in existing deployment measures. They are therefore limited in scope. As the measures are about how our existing judiciary may be deployed, they do not impact directly on new appointments to the judiciary.

Implementing these measures will largely follow existing processes by which the senior judiciary authorise judges to sit in additional courts or tribunals. In the interests of fairness and transparency, where it is appropriate in accordance with the circumstances of each case, deployment decisions will be taken following an expression of interest exercise across the eligible pool of judges.

Increases in flexible deployment may enable individuals to gain valuable experience in sitting in other jurisdictions. For example, the measure which provides for the 14 senior employment judges also to be judges of the unified tribunals may enable them to demonstrate their competencies across a broader range of case types. This may in future result in more diverse appointments to higher courts and tribunals.

I am sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House would agree with many or most of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I, too, have a long-standing interest in this area. However, I was struck by the assumption he sometimes seems to hold that only women have caring responsibilities. I hope he will agree that men should care, too.

I am happy to place on record this Government’s commitment to working with the judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission to increase judicial diversity. We have seen gradual improvements in gender and ethnic diversity since 2014, but we know that there is more to do to improve judicial diversity at all levels. For example, the representation of men and women from BAME communities has increased from 6% to 7% in the courts and from 9% to 10% in tribunals, and the first BAME judge was appointed to the Court of Appeal in 2017. The judiciary publishes annual judicial diversity statistics, and this year’s publication will take place on Thursday.

It is important for the quality, independence and impartiality of our judges that we always appoint the most talented candidates on merit. We know that there are many talented potential candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds and we want to encourage and support even more of them to apply for judicial office. That is why the Ministry of Justice strongly supports the work of the Judicial Diversity Forum and works as part of the forum alongside legal professional bodies, judicial representatives and the Judicial Appointments Commission to co-ordinate action to increase judicial diversity.

In April we announced funding for a pre-application judicial education programme, PAJE, which will provide information and support to those considering a judicial role, and will be targeted in particular at those from underrepresented groups. This is very much a partnership project, and the Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Judicial College, members of the judiciary, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives to finalise the programme content. We anticipate that the first candidates will be able to participate in PAJE in early 2019.

There are several other initiatives and support schemes for potential candidates from diverse groups that are run by the Judicial Office and the legal professions, and supported by the Judicial Appointments Commission. These include outreach events, judicial-run workshops and mentoring schemes.

The Lord Chancellor is personally committed to working with the Lord Chief Justice and the chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission to consider all practical actions that would impact positively on diversity, assess the impact of our existing activities and measure progress. The Lord Chancellor appears regularly before the Justice Select Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee on matters relating to the judiciary, including diversity. We think that this is the appropriate and proportionate way of advising noble Lords on actions that we are taking to improve judicial diversity.

I hope that what I have said has reassured the noble Lord of our commitment to improving judicial diversity—

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

I apologise for intervening. Before the noble Baroness sits down—I love this convention—I was just thinking about her comments on meritocracy and the importance of having merit. Surely she is not suggesting an inherent tension between merit and diversity. I was a little concerned that she might be satisfied with the current pace of change. Have I misunderstood that? Is she not impatient for a greater speed of change in this area, in the light of the constitutional and public concerns aired by the noble Lord, Lord Marks?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I think that the noble Baroness is perhaps not entirely understanding my comments. It is absolutely key that we get the best candidates into the job. The point of this is to make sure that the pool of possible candidates is as broad as possible. No candidate, whether they be from a BAME community, female or disabled, should be left out of the pool—and from that pool it is important that we select those candidates who are the best for that particular job.

I hope that, in the light of my comments, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, when the Minister started her response, I was tempted to accuse her of complacency. However, I now accept, after the length of her speech and what she said subsequently, that that was directed only to the limited ambit of the Bill.

On the subject of men’s caring responsibilities, I think she will find that Hansard will show that I specifically mentioned them—although I may have emphasised women’s. But as a father of seven, it would be wrong for me to omit mention of caring responsibilities myself. I should also perhaps have echoed the parental declaration of interest of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, because one of my children is a solicitor.

I respond to the point that the Minister made about merit regardless of all. The whole point of the tipping amendment that we tabled to the courts Bill was to ensure that, where there were candidates of equal merit, it was permissible to choose a candidate who had a protected characteristic over an equally qualified candidate, in much the same way as happens in organisations across the land. That ought to be important.

Finally, I do not accuse the Minister of complacency. What she said plainly showed that the Government do care. However, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in attacking this Bill for its failure to address the very real problems and make good the promise of modernisation of the courts in a comprehensive fashion. I know that the noble and learned Lord has told us that other legislation will follow on the modernisation of the courts, but there are real issues to address, and judicial diversity is one of them. Saying that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury]

My Lords, I applaud the noble Baroness’s concerns, which, as in the previous amendments, are directed towards ensuring that the high standards of justice in this country are maintained.

I echo to a considerable extent what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. However, in the end, these are matters for the rule committee. There are two protected factors: one is that nothing can be done without it being in the rules, and the second is that the Lord Chief Justice needs to give his or her authorisation to the person who makes the decision. The other amendment concerns the Senior President of Tribunals. With the rules, there is the protection of them having to be laid before Parliament, and therefore any restrictions of the sort that the noble Baroness wishes to put forward would have to be considered by the rule committee. If they were not in the rules, and this House felt that they should be, this House would then have an opportunity to see what was said and why. I again suggest that these matters are best left to the rule committee. As the noble Lord has indicated, there is clearly room for disagreement over which items and categories should be included and what should not be included. That is best left to the rule committee and, in due course, to the Lord Chief Justice.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank all contributors to this short debate. These amendments seek to place in the Bill a list of functions that authorised staff would not be permitted to undertake. I ask the same question that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked at Second Reading: do we really want to put such restrictions—which he described as a fetter on the administration of justice—in this Bill? An example would be the proposal to prevent authorised officers making orders that are opposed by one or more party. I accept that there will be circumstances in which it could be inappropriate for an authorised member of staff to adjudicate on such a matter. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, where, for example, the parties to a case are simply disagreeing about a date on which a hearing should be set, should it not be possible for an authorised member of staff to deal with this under the supervision of a judge?

I fully understand the intention behind these amendments and recognise the importance of ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place. Our provisions ensure that the judicial functions that authorised staff may or may not exercise will be subject to appropriate scrutiny by experts, generally in the form of the procedure rule committees. The Bill will also ensure that, where staff are authorised to provide legal advice or to exercise judicial functions, they are suitably experienced and qualified. It is important to recognise that the concept of authorised staff performing judicial functions is not a new one for courts and tribunals. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff can already be authorised to exercise the jurisdiction of almost every court or tribunal, up to and including the High Court and Upper Tribunal. Rule committees already have experience in deciding the functions that such staff may exercise.

I remind noble Lords that the purpose of these provisions is to increase the efficiency of our courts by allowing authorised staff to undertake a wider range of functions under the supervision of judges, so that judges themselves are free to deal with the more complex matters before them. This amendment would not only place unnecessary limitations on what we could achieve in this area but undermine the progress that we have already made. For example, justices’ clerks and assistant justices’ clerks currently make cost orders and search orders in appropriate cases. They also make orders for special measures for vulnerable defendants, victims and witnesses giving evidence, such as the use of video links and screens. They carry out these tasks efficiently and effectively.

The Bill provisions build on the existing process for assignment of judicial responsibilities in a sensible and proportionate way, and will allow authorised staff to carry out judicial functions in the Crown Court for the first time. Staff will be authorised by the Lord Chief Justice or his nominee and will work under the supervision of the judiciary. The Bill puts decision-making as to which functions may or may not be exercised by authorised staff in the right hands: the procedure rule committees. Here, the powers can be properly scrutinised by judges, practitioners and other interested parties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, spoke powerfully about his own experience of chairing the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, the expertise of the committee and the fact that it always managed to reach consensus. The judiciary is ultimately responsible for authorising court and tribunal staff to exercise such functions and, as is currently the case, it will do so only if satisfied as to their competence. As pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, procedure rules are also subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the negative resolution procedure, which provides an additional check on these provisions. In the light of the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, will withdraw her amendment.

Privately Financed Prisons

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am very pleased that the noble Lord knew it was 83,000, and now I can reassure him that I, too, know it is 83,000 and not 93,000.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords that this is an opportunity to question the Minister. Therefore, questions rather than long statements would be appreciated.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from “an” to end of line 7 and insert “injury of soft tissue in the neck, back or shoulder that is of a description falling within subsection (1A), but not including an injury excepted by subsection (1B).
(1A) An injury falls within this subsection if it is—(a) a sprain, strain, tear, rupture or lesser damage of a muscle, tendon or ligament in the neck, back or shoulder, or(b) an injury of soft tissue associated with a muscle, tendon or ligament in the neck, back or shoulder.(1B) An injury is excepted by this subsection if—(a) it is an injury of soft tissue which is a part of or connected to another injury, and(b) the other injury is not an injury of soft tissue in the neck, back or shoulder of a description falling within subsection (1A).”

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to all the government amendments in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen in this group. These amendments concern putting the full definition of “whiplash injury”, to which the measures in Part 1 will apply, in the Bill. Amendment 4 introduces a limited power to amend the full definition of whiplash injuries by means of affirmative regulations.

The Government have carefully considered the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that it is important, in order to get a full understanding of the Bill, for “whiplash injury” to be defined in full in the Bill rather than in regulations. We have also reflected on the similar views put forward by noble Lords during recent debates in this House. We agree with the merit of these arguments, and as a result I now bring forward amendments to achieve this.

The Government’s proposed full definition is focused on soft tissue injuries to the neck, back and shoulder. It is particularly important to ensure that claims for soft tissue injuries to the shoulder, which are already routinely included in many current whiplash claims, will also be covered. The detailed definition provides clarity and certainty for both claimants and defendants. We have listened to experts and also broadened the definition to injuries to the shoulder to mitigate against claims displacement. It is consistent with the Bill’s aim of bringing into scope all relevant claims and injuries so we can effectively tackle the continuing high number of whiplash claims which so impact on the cost of insurance premiums for ordinary motorists.

As many noble Lords recognised in previous debates, it is essential that the full definition can be adapted so it can respond to future medical developments or changes in the behaviour of the claims market. If it cannot be amended promptly it could have an adverse impact on genuinely injured claimants and insured motorists. We therefore propose a further amendment to introduce a limited power to amend the definition by regulations. We have discussed this issue in detail with noble Lords from across the House in recent weeks and believe that many in this Chamber agree that this is necessary. Amendment 4 would therefore permit the Lord Chancellor to amend, by regulations, the definition of “whiplash injury” to include other soft tissue injuries to the neck, back or shoulder or to exclude or refine the description of soft tissue injuries to the neck, back or shoulder.

The power to amend the definition the Government are seeking is limited. No changes can be made for three years to ensure the current definition has time to bed in. Before making any changes, the Lord Chancellor must first undertake a review of the current definition and publish a report including the decision about whether to amend it. Any amendments must also be subject to consultation with the statutory consultees set out in the Bill, which are the Lord Chief Justice, the Chief Medical Officers for England and Wales, the Bar Council and the Law Society, among others. The power could not be used within three years of the previous review. I believe that the definition and power to amend, as proposed in the government amendments, reflects the will of the House. They are clear, reasonable and proportionate to the problem. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (2)

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Amendment 2A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green who, sadly, cannot be here today. It is the result of a lot of discussion in Committee about how to avoid what is otherwise a very useful Bill having an adverse effect on vulnerable road users, who could be defined as cyclists, pedestrians, motor cyclists—those who can sometimes suffer most from injuries such as this. I am also grateful to the Minister for agreeing to see us a few weeks ago, when we had a useful discussion.

We were able to table this amendment only yesterday because we struggled to come up with wording that does not affect the main Bill but that protects vulnerable road users and allows them to continue, if they need to, to get legal aid under the present arrangements, rather than increasing the minimum figure to £5,000. We concluded that, as the Minister and many other noble Lords have said, this Bill is about whiplash and nothing else. As I understand it—I hope the Minister will confirm this when she responds—it is only about whiplash and nothing to do with any other kind of legal aid claim that might be needed for other issues, road traffic or otherwise.

I had a long discussion with the clerks on this issue, as well, and it seemed to me that what was needed was something that would exclude vulnerable road users from the particular issue we are talking about—raising the legal aid limit—if they suffer whiplash. One might ask how a pedestrian or a cyclist is going to suffer whiplash if they are not in a car, but they probably could, for whatever reason, if they are hit by a car.

We then looked at Clause 1(3) and I, as a non-lawyer, started to get a bit confused as to who the phrase “the person” referred to. Is it the person who suffered injury, or the person who might be alleged to have caused the injury? It seemed to me that there is a reasonably elegant solution—which I am sure my legal friends will say does not work—that clarifies what is meant by “the person” in subsection (3). If the amendment were accepted, it would be clear that:

“For the purposes of this Part a person suffers a whiplash injury because of driver negligence if … when the person suffers the injury”,


that person,

“is using a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle on a road or other public place”.

I think that this is quite an elegant solution, providing an exception to this Bill for vulnerable road users who are not in cars, and who therefore would not be included.

I hope that that short explanation is helpful. I look forward to other comments and in the meantime, I beg to move.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord and appreciate the change he would like to make. In our view, however, the existing clause already makes it sufficiently clear that the person who suffers a whiplash injury because of driver negligence is the person who is either using the motor vehicle or who is a passenger in the motor vehicle at the time of the accident. The amendment therefore seems to add no practical difference to the construction of the clause.

In relation to vulnerable road users, I reassure the House that the clauses of the Bill relating to whiplash do not extend to cyclists, passers-by or pedestrians outside the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident. However, I am aware that such road users remain captured by the Government’s non-Bill measure to increase the small-claims limit for road-traffic-accident-related claims to £5,000. We will deal with this issue in more detail a little later today, but I can say that we are sympathetic to the arguments made in relation to vulnerable road users and will continue to consider the matter. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. One of the reasons for tabling the amendment was to probe her response. I will read it very carefully but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (5)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to amend section 1
(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations amend the definition of “whiplash injury” in section 1, but not so as to include an injury of soft tissue other than soft tissue in the neck, back or shoulder.(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor must—(a) review the definition of “whiplash injury” in section 1,(b) as part of the review, consider whether to amend section 1,(c) prepare and publish a report of the review, including a decision whether or not to amend section 1 and the reasons for the decision, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(3) After laying the copy of the report before Parliament and before making regulations under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor must consult—(a) the Lord Chief Justice;(b) the General Council of the Bar; (c) the Law Society;(d) the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social Care;(e) the member of staff of the Welsh Government designated by the Welsh Ministers as the Chief Medical Officer for Wales;(f) such other persons or bodies as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.(4) The Lord Chancellor may not carry out the first review under subsection (2) before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which section 1 comes into force.(5) After the first review, the Lord Chancellor may not carry out a review under subsection (2) before the end of the period of three years beginning with—(a) if regulations under subsection (1) were made following the previous review, the day on which those regulations came into force, or(b) if no regulations under subsection (1) were made following the previous review, the day on which a copy of the report of the previous review was laid before Parliament.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

5: Clause 2, page 2, line 29, after “injury” insert “or any of the whiplash injuries suffered on that occasion”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I shall speak very briefly to Amendments 35 and 36, both of which concern medical reports. These and also Amendment 39, to which my noble friend Lord Sharkey spoke, are in my name. The purpose of Amendment 35 is simple. While it is very difficult to prove, there is widespread concern that the quality of medical reports and, sadly, sometimes the quality and genuineness of those who provide them, is low.

Of course, it is notoriously difficult for clinicians to give reliable evidence of whiplash injuries, both because the symptoms are self-reported—and reported differently by different patients depending on their robustness—and because patients’ accounts are hard to test objectively. Assessment of the likely duration of whiplash injuries, which becomes increasingly important in view of a cliff edge-type tariff, is also very challenging because the course of recovery is extremely difficult to predict and varies from patient to patient, again often dependent on no more than the robustness of the patient concerned. However, some clinicians develop considerable experience of these injuries, and a sensible system of accreditation, with the assistance of MedCo—which is already involved in assisting with the criteria for qualifications to produce medical reports, and quality assurance—ought to be able to encourage some consistency. That is why we seek the incorporation of a reference to MedCo in the legislation.

Amendment 36 would require the Lord Chancellor,

“by regulations make provision for the cost of obtaining appropriate medical evidence … to be recoverable by a claimant who succeeds … unless the court decides that such recovery would be contrary to the interests of justice”.

This is a topic on which I have sought reassurance from the Minister in previous stages, and I have received some. But the current position is that recoverability is a matter of discretion. With the proposed change in the small claims limit and the proposed new portal, we would like to hear a statement that it is intended that in all cases where a claimant, even one below the small claims limit, succeeds in recovering damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity under the tariff, the cost of obtaining the medical report, which will be compulsory, will go with it, unless doing so,

“would be contrary to the interests of justice”.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to either the provision of medical reports in relation to the ban on pre-medical offers for whiplash claims or the cold-calling provisions.

I start by reassuring noble Lords that the cost of medical reports is already recoverable in personal injury claims where the defendant insurer has admitted any part of liability. They will continue to be recoverable following these reforms, including in the small claims track following the proposed increase of the limit to £5,000.

The amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, place the requirement for medical reports to be,

“provided by an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo Portal”,

or other experts specified by the Lord Chancellor in regulations. Currently, the Civil Procedure Rules require any initial medical report in support of a whiplash claim to be sought through the MedCo IT portal, which, as noble Lords will be aware, was established to improve the independence and quality of medical reporting. The Civil Procedure Rules also require that all MedCo medical reports must be provided by an accredited medical expert.

These provisions were made through the Civil Procedure Rules for a reason. The Civil Procedure Rules are flexible and their use allows for rapid responses to changed circumstances. MedCo is an industry-owned and operated company, and it would be very unusual to enshrine the purposes of such an organisation in the rigid structure of primary legislation. MedCo was formed to take forward government policy in relation to medical reporting. However, circumstances may change, as could MedCo’s role. Alternative accreditation schemes may be added or it may become necessary to appoint another organisation to operate the current process. Were the use of the excellent MedCo process to be put in the Bill, the ability to respond to such changed circumstances would be lost, and genuine claimants could suffer as a result. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, not to press his amendments.

Amendments 32 and 39, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, seek to add a requirement relating to claims sourced through cold calling to the Government’s prohibition on the making or seeking of settling whiplash claims without medical evidence. While I fully understand the noble Lords’ motivations in tabling these amendments, I believe it would not be appropriate to widen the ban on seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without the claimant first seeking medical evidence to also include claims which may have been sourced via a cold call. This could discriminate against genuinely injured claimants.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on Amendment 65, in particular, and the consequential amendments. More than anything else, the simplification of the process for the first review of the discount rate will allow the Lord Chancellor to proceed with the speed that everyone in this House has urged. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will confirm that the Government are prepared to accept Amendment 65 and the consequential amendments. I look forward to her acceptance.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments relate to the speed with which the first review of the rate can be conducted. Initially, I will focus on Amendment 65 and the related consequential Amendments 64, 66, 72, 74, 78 and 87.

The amendments would accelerate the conclusion of the first review in four ways: first, by replacing the need for the Lord Chancellor to consult the expert panel with a requirement to consult the Government Actuary, thereby simplifying the preparation for the first review. Secondly, by reducing the maximum period within which a review must be completed from 180 days to 140 days. Thirdly, by requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult the Government Actuary within the first 20 days of the review starting. Fourthly, by reducing the time for the Government Actuary to carry out his or her review following the Lord Chancellor’s request, from the 90 days currently afforded to the expert panel in the Bill to 80 days. The remaining changes made by the amendments, including the obligation on the Lord Chancellor to publish information about the Government Actuary’s advice, are consequential to these four changes.

The Government have made clear on several occasions that they are committed to starting and completing the first review as quickly as practical after Royal Assent. The amendments will assist the achievement of that objective because they will remove much of the uncertainty that would exist as to the readiness and availability of the as-yet-unknown members of the panel to commence the review promptly. This means that the open-ended period for the request to the panel can be confined to a specified period.

In addition, the carrying out of a review by the Government Actuary rather than a panel is administratively and substantively a simpler proposition. The overall period for the review and the period for the Government Actuary’s response can therefore both be shortened. The proposal that the Lord Chancellor will make the determination on the rate within 140 days of the start of the review, and that the Government Actuary will respond within 80 days of the Lord Chancellor’s request, recognises these changes in the proposals. The amendments do not affect the timing of the commencement of the review.

However, the removal of the panel from the first review reverses a policy decision that the Government took when replying to the Justice Select Committee’s recommendation to involve the panel in the first review. The reversal of this decision is not something that the Government would do lightly—but, having listened to strong arguments from noble Lords across the House that the first review needs to be completed more quickly than would be possible if the panel had to be constituted, the Government accept that the proposed approach is a sensible and pragmatic step. We have spoken with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and are grateful to him for agreeing some changes from the terms of his initial proposal in Committee. On this basis, the Government are content to accept Amendment 65 and the related consequential amendments.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, the effect of Amendment 51 and the related Amendments 52, 55, 58 and 59 would be to require the first review to be started within 25 days of commencement, rather than the maximum 90 days as provided for in the Bill at present. Amendment 90 would be even more restrictive on the time allowed, as it would require the timetable for the first review to begin on the date of Royal Assent. As I have explained, we share noble Lords’ desire to ensure that a review is carried out as quickly as is reasonably practical. However, reducing the period within which the Lord Chancellor must begin the first review—which is a maximum period that may well be bettered in practice—runs the risk of creating unnecessary problems around compliance with time limits for those involved in translating this legislation into action. This is particularly the case given the Government’s acceptance of the reduced time limits in Amendment 65.

Even though the review will no longer involve the expert panel, there is still a need for extensive pre-review research and analysis to be completed to enable the Government Actuary to provide input to the review on a fully informed basis. This will include developing the data requirements to inform a call for evidence on investment advice and behaviour, funds available to investors and their risk characteristics, and allowances for tax and investment management costs; preparing and publishing the relevant call for evidence documents; and collating and analysing the responses. While we will ensure that the gathering of evidence proceeds as quickly as possible, that work will require time and it is important that it is done properly. At present we estimate that it will be completed around the end of November, but there is a possibility that the Bill may achieve Royal Assent earlier than expected.

The Government are, however, sympathetic to exploring ways to reduce the 90-day period within which the first review must begin, without making the period so short as to cause problems for the rest of the timetable. In light of this we would be happy to discuss the detail of these amendments further with noble Lords before Third Reading if they would be willing to do so. I hope that this commitment will reassure noble Lords that the Government are prepared to examine how the 90-day period following commencement might be reduced and, on that basis, I urge them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Sharkey]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her response, particularly to Amendment 65 and the consequential and preparatory amendments. I am also grateful for her comments about Amendment 51 and the allied amendments. I think it is generally agreed, as she said, that 90 days is too long. Perhaps 25 days is not quite right; perhaps we need a Goldilocks solution. I would be very happy, as I am sure others would, to join in a conversation between now and Third Reading to discuss exactly what size of bowl Goldilocks would like.

I notice, though, that the Minister did not address Amendment 90. I acknowledge the comment that it would be difficult to reduce it to zero, but I heard nothing else. I did not hear a suggestion that it could be some number that is not zero but is still quite small—and certainly less than the number that is currently in place. Would the Minister be happy to discuss that number as well between now and Third Reading?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Yes, I reassure the noble Lord that we would be very happy to do that.

[Lord Sharkey]

I thank the Minister very much. That is very helpful—and having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 56 I will speak also to Amendments 57 and 57A.

Amendment 56 would require the court to consider certain factors when deciding in an individual case whether it would be appropriate to take into account a discount rate or rates different from that prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. Under new Section A1(2), introduced into the Damages Act 1996 by Clause 8(1), the court is not prevented from taking a different discount rate into account if any party to the proceedings shows that it is more appropriate in the case in question. This reflects the current law in the Damages Act 1996, although in practice the courts in England and Wales, following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warriner v Warriner, have chosen not to exercise the current power to depart from the prescribed rate.

The effect of the amendment would be to direct the court to consider the two different sets of circumstances listed in the amendment when deciding whether to apply a rate different from the prescribed rate or rates in an individual case. How the consideration of the factors would operate to assist the court in reaching a decision in practice is unclear, but it appears that the factors mentioned are not intended to be exhaustive.

The overarching effect of the amendment would be considerably to complicate individual proceedings as it would open up the potential for a different rate to be applied much more frequently than at present. This would be likely to encourage disputes between the parties—for example, over whether a reasonable PPO offer had been made. This would create uncertainty in the law and could prolong litigation and impede settlements, as the parties in any individual case would be unclear as to what discount rate would be appropriate and might be unwilling to settle without a court ruling.

When in the March 2017 consultation we asked whether the court should retain a power to apply a different rate if persuaded by one of the parties that it would be more appropriate to do so, 96 of the responses to the question supported the retention of the existing power, with 23 against. These, in general, were concerned about the problems of uncertainty, inconsistency and delay if the power were to be expanded. These difficulties would only be increased if the amendment were adopted. We believe that it is desirable for the Lord Chancellor to set a rate that is generally applicable and is not constantly called into question in individual cases. This is the core benefit of a prescribed rate and it should not lightly be set aside.

Amendment 57 would specify that, in addition to the ability of the Lord Chancellor to specify different discount rates for different classes of case, different rates could also be specified for different periods and for descriptions of future pecuniary loss. We do not consider that the amendment is necessary. New Section A1(4) already prescribes that the Lord Chancellor may distinguish between classes of case by reference to, among other things, the description of future pecuniary loss involved and the length of the period during which future pecuniary loss is expected to occur. The Explanatory Notes state:

“Subsection (4) makes clear that the power in subsection (3) to prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case includes the power to set separate rates for different sorts of future loss or for different durations of award. For example, under this power one rate might apply to damages for the first ten years and another rate to damages for subsequent years”.


I therefore reassure the noble Earl that the Bill already addresses the point he has raised.

Amendment 57A would ensure that the Lord Chancellor’s power to prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case could be applied to specify different rates for classes of case defined by reference to the anticipated scale of the award. New Section A1(3) provides that different rates of return may be prescribed under new Section A1(1) for different classes of case. New Section A1(4) clarifies that this power extends to defining classes by reference to heads of loss or duration of loss. This clarification is not exhaustive of the categories that the Lord Chancellor might adopt.

The power to set different rates of return for different classes of case is, however, already provided for, and the Lord Chancellor will decide whether to use the power to set different rates in the way that best delivers the objective of setting a prescribed rate. Such cases could indeed extend to the situation envisaged by the amendment, although this may be a difficult distinction to define and apply in practice. However, they could also be classed by reference to numerous other classes of case. It is, however, unnecessary to define what the classes may be. Given this, I do not think that the amendment proposed is necessary. On the basis of the explanation I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful to all those who took part in the debate and to the Minister for her informative reply. I have to say, however, that I did find that it went two ways: on the one hand, we do not need the amendment because it is already there; on the other hand, the amendment, if effected, will cause uncertainty. That may not wholly do justice to the subtlety of the argument, but it did seem essentially to be that.

As I understand it, my noble friend said that the Lord Chancellor can choose different rates but a judge cannot, because the decision is made. That is, of course, at odds with the decision made by Jonathan Sumption and with the view of many. I respectfully submit that, although it will not be a regular occurrence, it is better for there to be a degree of flexibility for judges to order a different rate depending on the particular head of loss—as was done in the case in Guernsey and in many other jurisdictions. But I can see that I have not yet persuaded the Government of that.

As to the other part of the amendment, which relates to the consideration of an offer of periodical payments, with respect, I do not understand how that causes confusion, difficulty or uncertainty. It is a factor that a court can take into consideration—it is entirely a matter for the court. It is also, I submit, something that will assist in bringing about a settlement, because a claimant who is in receipt of a sensible offer of periodical payments may say to him or herself, “If I don’t accept this offer, there is a risk that there will be a less favourable discount rate”. That should promote settlement, which seems to be an aim that everybody concerned with these debates shares. So at the moment I am not satisfied that that would cause any difficulties.

I share with all noble Lords the desire to somehow include in the Bill or elsewhere more encouragement to use periodical payments. Therefore I would like to be included on the CC list for the meeting with the Minister so that I can bring what limited wisdom I have to try to encourage this. In the meantime, I shall consider carefully what my noble friend said. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the amendments in the group alter how often reviews of the rate take place and shorten the timing of the review period. Some of the points I shall make have been touched on in previous groups but, I feel, are worth repeating in this context.

The three-year period adopted in the Bill represents a compromise approach based on the responses to the March 2017 consultation. A wide range of views were expressed as to how often the rate should be reviewed, from automatic reviews at short intervals to every 10 years. The most popular options among the substantial majority who favoured fixed-period reviews were: one year, with 28 responses; five years, with 23 responses; and 21 favouring something in between.

In adopting a three-year period, we were conscious that any fixed period will at some stage influence litigation behaviour. In our view, three years strikes a reasonable balance between the risk of continual, or at least over-frequent, anticipation of rate changes associated with a shorter period influencing litigation behaviour, on the one hand, and the risk resulting from a longer period of more dramatic changes to the rate, on the other.

We believe that the more frequent reviews under a three-year cycle should lead to smaller adjustments in the rate on each review than that under the five-year cycle proposed in Amendment 62. This should reduce concerns about the size of any change in the rate as a result of the review, which should also reduce any temptation to distort the litigation process in the hope of benefiting from a significant advantageous change to the rate. We continue to believe that a three-year maximum review period represents a reasonable compromise between the different views held in this House and outside it.

Amendments 72 and 75 would shorten the period within which a review of the discount rate must be completed, from 180 to 120 days. Amendment 73 would shorten the time available to the expert panel to deliver its response to the Lord Chancellor from 90 days to 75 days. We fully recognise the need to ensure that reviews are conducted promptly and do not take up an excessive amount of time. However, it is equally important that sufficient time is available to enable the review to be properly informed and to give the expert panel and the Lord Chancellor an adequate period to consider all the issues that may arise.

We have drawn on the experience of reviewing the rate under the present law in proposing the time periods now in the Bill. It may be helpful to explain how the 180-day period allowed for in the Bill is made up. Turning to the first 90-day period, each review will require the analysis of up-to-date evidence on investment returns and investment behaviour to ensure that a fully informed decision is reached. The expert panel will need to consider this evidence in detail and prepare a thorough report for the Lord Chancellor. We consider that the 90-day period allowed for in the Bill represents a challenging but reasonable deadline for the panel to provide this. Turning to the second 90-day period, the Lord Chancellor will in turn need to consider the panel’s report and, as is the case under the current framework, consult HM Treasury. As the panel will be introducing new expertise into the review process, it is important that the other parties involved have the benefit of its considered views. Again, we consider that the 90-day period allowed for in the Bill is reasonable for this part of the review.

We therefore consider that the overall period of 180 days is reasonable to ensure that proper preparation of the review and careful consideration of the issues can take place. A significantly shorter period, such as that proposed in the amendment, could reduce the thoroughness and effectiveness of the review process. On the basis of the explanations I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful, or fairly grateful, to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is entirely at a loss to understand the purpose of my amendment. Quite a number of other people seem to favour five years, so it is not a complete outlier. In fact, as many seem to favour five years as three years or any other period.

As my noble friend conceded, whatever period is selected is in a sense a compromise. It must be arbitrary. I am grateful to my noble friend for answering not only this group of amendments but an earlier group when dealing with the mechanism of the time limits for the Lord Chancellor to go through the process of conducting the review and appointing a panel. We have already been told that our suggestions are inappropriate in that respect, but it is nice to be told again. That was clearly in the speaking note.

As to the question of why three years, my noble friend said that there may be smaller adjustments after three years rather than five. With great respect, that depends on the economic climate. There may be some enormous economic event—we are not unfamiliar with those, sadly—which means that there could be a dramatic change in a short period. I am unconvinced by that argument.

My main point was gaming. I have personal evidence and experience that it is going on at the moment. Clearly, it is anecdotal, but I suggest that three years is definitely the wrong period. I will withdraw my amendment now. I shall do my best to accumulate better evidence to try to convince the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, among others, and the Government, that five years is a better period. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we support the thrust of this amendment. Matters would have been helped had there been a stand-in panel in the first place.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, Amendment 89 would allow the Lord Chancellor to establish a panel informally before the Bill has received Royal Assent. As we indicated in responding to earlier amendments, the Government share the objective of ensuring that the first review of the rate is begun and completed as promptly as is practicable. With that in mind, we have committed in response to the Justice Select Committee report not only to issue a further call for evidence to obtain any additional relevant information but to commission the Government Actuary’s Department to carry out further research and analysis.

The solution proposed in the amendment to the question of how to get the panel working at the earliest possible date is certainly imaginative, but it assumes that there will be a material difference in the time by which the proposed “shadow panel” and the “real panel” will be able to carry out that work. That is not necessarily the case. The panel will need evidence and analysis to carry out its work. That will take time. There are also the considerations that the process of recruitment should be in accordance with the principles of public appointments and that the review process must be open and transparent.

I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion, but I do not think that in a subject as sensitive as the setting of the personal injury discount rate I can accept it. I can, however, reassure him that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the first review of the rate following the passage of the Bill will be conducted as swiftly as possible, while also on as fully informed a basis as it possibly can be. In the light of this, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.