Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, on bringing this important Bill forward and on her totally persuasive introduction. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, she made an “unimpeachable” case. We have heard some very powerful speeches today and not a dissenting voice. I hope that the Minister takes note of that.

It was particularly interesting to hear from my noble friend Lady Grender that it can be done. She campaigned to make revenge porn a criminal offence and she emphasised the importance not only of getting it through but of the enforcement process afterwards. I also totally agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that, when you pass legislation, you have to make sure that it absolutely fulfils its intent. Many of us are very unhappy about the way that the categorisation process is being carried out at the moment with the Online Safety Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, reminded us that we have some form in campaigning on these issues in this House. There is now a formidable supporters’ club for this Bill, honed through quite a few years’ experience. Again, I hope that the Minister takes note of that.

An extraordinary one in 14 adults have experienced threats to share intimate images in England and Wales, rising to one in seven among young women. We need to ensure effective prevention of image-based abuse, while supporting the victims. It would take too long to read out the names of all the noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have described in some detail the impact on the victims.

As technology develops, so does the risk, not only to high-profile figures in public life—I pay tribute to the resilience of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, in that respect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster—but to people going about their daily lives as well.

There is a clear link between gender-based violence and image-based abuse. The Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls, explore how future legislation can safeguard victims, improve prosecutions and deter potential perpetrators from committing image-based abuse crimes. I would have thought that that very much covers what we are talking about today. Sharing intimate images without consent has, I grant you, been designated a “priority offence” under the Online Safety Act, but the Government need to go further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and every other speaker in this debate, has urged.

As we have heard, current UK law clearly does not effectively address non-consensual intimate image creation. Although it is currently illegal to share or threaten to share non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes, creating them is not yet illegal. This means that someone could create a deepfake image of another person without their consent and not face legal consequences, so long as they do not share or threaten to share it.

The Online Safety Act added new offences to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, making it illegal to share or threaten to share intimate images. However, the Law Commission, which advises the UK Government on legal reform, believed that there was not enough evidence of harm to criminalise creating deepfakes if they were not shared, which many of us think was too timid. We have heard quite the contrary today. The very welcome Bill brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, fills that gap in the law by criminalising the creation of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes.

It is welcome that the Bill does not require intention. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, requiring intention would make it virtually unenforceable. The use of the term “strict liability” by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was absolutely correct.

The Bill specifically, and rightly, targets deepfakes due to their rising prevalence, as we have heard, and their potential for harm, particularly towards women. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John, that none of us anticipated the power of AI when we looked at it back in 2017 and 2018. We have heard some of the figures. An Internet Matters study in 2023 revealed that 13% of teenage children in the UK aged 13 to 17 have encountered a nude deepfake image, equating to over 500,000 young people. Security Hero research showed that 98% of deepfake videos online were pornographic, with 99% of those featuring women and girls, making it a problem that is, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, “inherently sexist” and

“the new frontier of violence against women”.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that this is a problem created by men.

The ease with which these videos can be created using readily available apps and online platforms further exacerbates the issue. In a welcome way, the Bill expands the definition of taking an image to encompass digital creation. This explicitly includes the creation of deepfakes under the umbrella of illegal activities relating to intimate images. It also rightly criminalises, as we have heard, soliciting the creation of non-consensual intimate images, including deepfakes.

I hope the Government, in considering their position, acknowledge the severe impact that intimate image deepfakes can have on victims, even if the images are not shared, and that the psychological distress, violation of privacy and potential for reputational damage caused by deepfakes will be taken into consideration. I very much hope that, despite signs to the contrary so far, they will adopt the Bill and redeem their manifesto pledge to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.

There have been a number of takeaways from almost every speaker. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, urged speed. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked who we would be protecting in not passing this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that if South Korea can do it, so can we. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, noted that this tool is available now and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said that the Government should use Private Members’ Bills and the tool provided by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that this will become a bigger issue if we do not act now and my noble friend Lady Featherstone that women cannot wait. I very much hope the Minister is mindful of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the whole purpose of the discussion today has been, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that there should be strict liability and not intent. Surely we are not talking about mens rea in this at all.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely heard what the noble Baroness said about strict liability offences. The Government’s position is as I just said. However, I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Second reading committee
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in the register. I add my thanks to the Minister for his clear introduction. I am an admirer of the work of the Law Commission, so it is intriguing to be debating the merits of this one-clause Bill with such a distinguished group of digital aficionados. Despite the brevity of the Bill, as the Minister has described, it has seen quite a careful run-up through consultation, response, report and draft Bill to help inform us. We have heard some great speeches today explaining why digital assets are important because of their impact, both negative and positive, on society and the economy.

The Law Commission has essentially recommended that we legislate to confirm that the outcome of the 1885 case Colonial Bank v Whinney, which decided that all personal things are either in possession or in action, is clearly superseded. Effectively, we are confirming that the common law of England and Wales has, over the last 10 years, clearly moved towards explicit recognition of a third category of things to which personal property rights can relate. In the words of the Law Commission, the courts have recognised that those things are

“capable of being objects of personal property rights at law”.

It was interesting to be reminded, while preparing for this debate, of the traditional forms of personal property. In the dim and distant past, I remember my supervising partner when I was an articled clerk—in the quill pen era—being very surprised when I had no idea how to draft an assignment of a chose in action. Actually, I had no idea what a chose in action was, despite two years of law at university. Anyway, young lawyers will now have to learn how to assign a digital asset as well.

The Electronic Trade Documents Act, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes—it is also good to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—and which I was pleased to help on its way recently, was an exception in that it provided that electronic, or digital, trade documents could be treated as things in possession. Sadly, the Centre for Digital Trade and Innovation, soon to become an international centre, recently said that, while there are some signs of adoption, particularly among large commodity traders using e-bills of lading, the dial has yet to move on more general usage of the Act to make international trade faster, cheaper and simpler—as suggested in the impact assessment—especially for the SME sector. So, sadly, not all Law Commission efforts bear fruit quickly.

However, as the Law Commission discusses in its consultation paper, it did not think that the arguments for using possession as the operative concept for electronic trade documents were as persuasive in respect of other forms of digital asset. It concluded that

“it is not necessary or appropriate for legislation to define the boundaries of such a third category”.

We are essentially being asked to take an act of faith in the adaptability of the common law and to accept that

“the common law remains best placed to describe the parameters of third category things that are capable of being objects of personal property rights”.

This is in line with the first two of the principles that the Law Commission has explicitly and rightly adopted. The first is:

“Championing and supporting the inherent flexibility of the common law and making clear that, in general, it is sufficiently flexible, and already able, to accommodate digital assets”.


The second is:

“Statutory reform only to confirm the existing common law position or where the common law cannot develop the legal certainty the market requires”.


So we see reflected in this short Bill the Law Commission’s recommended legislation confirming the simple proposition that the fact that a thing is neither a thing in possession nor a thing in action does not prevent it being a thing to which personal property rights can relate. As we have heard today from a number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Holmes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—this is designed to cover crypto tokens, such as bitcoin, ether and stablecoins, NFTs and carbon credits, which may not have rights or claims attached to them so they may not qualify as things in action.

Some lawyers say that there is already a high degree of legal certainty and that there exist certain types of intangible property that are already recognised by the law of England and Wales. In essence, the Law Commission says that the recommendation for statutory intervention seeks merely to confirm and support what it considers the existing position in law. It goes further in its belief that the common law can do the necessary job in further defining digital assets, saying that

“it is not necessary, appropriate or helpful for the law of England and Wales to adopt statutory definitions of digital things for the purposes of answering the question as to whether such things are capable of being objects of personal property rights”.

It continues:

“We think that this logic applies equally to defining hard boundaries of a category of thing to which personal property rights can relate, distinct from things in possession and things in action”.


So, broadly speaking, the Law Commission leaves detailed implications to be fleshed out through future judicial decisions and ongoing common-law development, perhaps with the expert panel.

This includes the important aspect of remedies. The commission concludes that

“the vitiating factors of mistake, misrepresentation, duress and undue influence apply similarly to contracts involving third category things as they do to contracts involving things in possession and things in action”.

We are taking quite a lot on faith here. However, when it comes to certain other aspects, such as the entry into operation and enforcement of collateral arrangements for crypto tokens and crypto assets, the Law Commission concludes that

“it is not possible for the common law alone to develop a legal framework”

and that

“such a regime would be beneficial for the law of England and Wales and would provide market participants with important legal tools that do not exist today”.

Some questions arise. What next steps are proposed for this? Is this another case for the expert panel to look at? Is the common law adequate to deal with transfers and intermediate holding arrangements?

There are a number of additional questions, to which I hope we will get the answers in the course of our Committee proceedings when we take evidence. For instance, the report touches on general consequences, such as clearer rules for inheritance, bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, touched on the vexed issue of digital assets in wills, while the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned it in the context of divorce—happy days. What are the potential legal consequences of the Bill’s approach for the parties involved in digital asset transactions? How will this impact issues such as ownership disputes, inheritance, bankruptcy and insolvency?

The Bill leaves detailed implications to be fleshed out through future judicial decisions and ongoing common-law development. The report clearly states that the courts will play a critical role in shaping the contours of this new category. Are they fully equipped to do so? Is that the best way forward, rather than providing more granular definitions in the Bill itself? Is there any transition of existing digital assets required from their current legal status to their status as a result of the Bill? What are the potential risks or unintended consequences of the proposed legislation? Will the explicit recognition of digital assets as personal property have an impact on the financial, technological and legal sectors? How do stakeholders from those sectors view the proposed Bill?

While the Law Commission in its reports acknowledges the possibility of unintended consequences, it argues that the flexibility of the common law approach will allow for adjustments and refinements as necessary, rather than detailing specific risks, and I am certain that the Committee will want to explore that approach.

Finally, I have two questions that the Minister may be able to answer today. The report discusses potential impacts, such as increased legal certainty and more straightforward asset management, but it does not provide an in-depth analysis of sector-specific impacts. Do the Government propose to produce an assessment of the impact that the recognition of digital assets as personal property will have on various sectors, or do they believe that because of the confirmatory nature of the Bill, that is already baked in?

Then, on a matter that a number of other noble Lords raised today—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Holmes—there is the whole question of how the proposed legislation aligns with existing international models. We heard mention of MiCA in the EU, while Dubai has digital asset legislation and a regulator, VARA, and the US will probably become more bullish about crypto assets under its new Administration. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was also very clear about the importance of the competitive aspect in terms of choice of jurisdiction. This question remains largely unanswered in the report, with the Law Commission not detailing how the Bill will align with international legal frameworks or affect international transactions. What are the potential risks or unintended consequences of any of the proposed legislation in this respect?

Other questions were rightly raised about the future regulation of crypto assets and cryptocurrencies. On whether we are going as far as we should in this respect, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, are pretty much on opposite sides of the equation. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, rightly made the point that the criminal law is ahead of the civil law—I see we are debating a statutory instrument on this subject on Monday. It may be beyond the Minister’s brief to be talking about the digital Michael Parkinson, but perhaps he could shine some light and give us a glimpse of the regulatory future as regards some of these digital assets.

There are many unanswered questions. I look forward to Committee, when I hope that we will get some more answers.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is now over 15 years since I last spoke at the Second Reading of an assisted dying Bill. However, I regret that I am no more persuaded by the eloquent and powerful arguments put for this Bill than I was at the time for that of Lord Joffe.

Nearly all of us come to this debate with a personal experience. I certainly do. I was a carer for my late wife, who endured a great deal of pain and suffering while undergoing all the ups and downs of five years of ultimately unsuccessful cancer treatment. She was also a doctor and she founded a cancer support charity. Despite her experience, she was of the strong view that the answer was high-quality palliative care, not the availability of assisted suicide. My heart goes out to my great friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for the lack of that care in her case. I still hold to that view, if anything more strongly. It is not just about some of the problematic wording in the Bill regarding prognosis and settled wish to die; it goes much wider than that. It is about risks to the inevitably vulnerable and the impossibility of safely mitigating that risk, especially in the light of what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, had to say about the future and what the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Mawson, said about the present.

When we debated Lord Joffe’s Bill, it could be argued that the Netherlands and Oregon had had their teething problems but that they demonstrated the safety and viability of assisted suicide legislation. After the passage of years, that assertion has been punctured, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, demonstrated. On the contrary, we can now see the real flaws in their systems and that of Canada, variously a lack of supervision, doctor shopping, a great increase in assisted deaths, greatly widened eligibility from the initial scope, and impact on investment in palliative care and charitable hospice activity. I am firmly on the side in this debate of the many people who have written so cogently and movingly in opposition to this Bill. I will vote to defeat it if given the opportunity.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.

It has been clear during the pandemic that we are increasingly dependent on digital technology and online solutions, but what is the reality in the digital economy of the Government’s levelling-up agenda? How are we mitigating digital online harms and digital exclusion? When we look at the risks and opportunities in adopting new technology, are we adopting the right values? The DDCMS Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, has recently set out 10 tech priorities. Some of them are reflected in the Queen’s Speech but many do not yet measure up. Two of them are

“Rolling out world-class digital infrastructure nationwide”


and

“Levelling up digital prosperity across the UK”.


We were originally promised spending of £5 billion by 2025, yet only a fraction of this, £1.2 billion, will have been spent by then. Digital exclusion and data poverty have become acute during the pandemic. It is estimated that 1.8 million children have not had adequate digital access. It is not just about broadband being available; it is about it being affordable, and about devices being available.

“Unlocking the power of data”


is another priority. Yes to this, and to

“Championing free and fair digital trade”,


so I welcome today’s response to the national data strategy and the national data strategy forum, but this must go hand in hand with a strong commitment to data governance, increasing public trust in the sharing and use of data and the work started by the Open Data Institute in creating trustworthy mechanisms such as data institutions and trusts.

Another priority is

“Keeping the UK safe and secure online”.


Amen to that, and to the secure-by-design consumer protection measures now promised to meet the challenges of internet security, but the draft online safety Bill now before us is not yet fit for purpose. Protection should be risk-based, not platform-based. In particular, there is the exclusion of commercial pornography where there is no user-generated content and the societal harms caused by, for instance, fake news—misinformation—so clearly described in the report of the Democracy and Digital Technologies Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Educational and news platforms are excluded in total. In addition, there are no group actions, no focus on the issues surrounding anonymity—"know your user”—no reference to economic harms, no focus on enhanced PSHE or the promised media literacy strategy, and little clarity on the issue of the algorithmic pushing of content. Where is the commitment to working with the IWF?

On the question of

“Building a tech-savvy nation”.


I welcome a greater focus on FE, the jobs and skills White Paper and the new Bill, but the pace, scale and ambition of government action does not match the challenge facing many people working in the UK. I welcome the work of the local digital skills partnerships, but they are massively underresourced. Broader digital literacy is crucial, as the AI road map pointed out.

With regard to

“Fuelling a new era of startups and scaleups”


and

“Unleashing the transformational power of tech and AI”,


catapults should become more effective institutions as a critical part of our innovation strategy. I welcome the commitment to producing a national AI strategy later this year, but it should contain key elements, such as the development of approaches to AI audit, compliance, and risk and impact assessment, and proposals to regulate high-risk applications such as live facial recognition and deepfakes. I welcome the priority to

“Leading the global conversation on tech”


and the recent G7 digital communique, but we need to go beyond principles in establishing international AI governance standards and solutions and agree on a digital services tax.

In closing, there are a number of major omissions in the Queen’s Speech. Where is the commitment to set up a new digital markets unit, to develop our own sovereign data capability and to tackle the gig economy in the many services run through digital applications? This last should be a major priority, and it is a gaping hole in the Queen’s Speech.

Legal Aid

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord seems to suggest that the Law Society was not enthusiastic about the process. In fact, in its response it said:

“The Society agrees, for the reasons given below, that change is needed in the procurement of criminal defence services. There is good evidence that the existing market is unlikely to be sustainable in the longer term and that this represents a significant risk for the integrity of the system”.

The Government were trying to ensure that there was adequate representation on the duty provider basis, that this was more efficiently provided and that there was a fair system for making sure that taxpayers’ money was properly spent.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society but we all have an interest in ensuring access to justice. As my noble friend Lord Marks mentioned, two whistleblowers have pointed out how flawed the process was, In addition, there is the potential for mass litigation involved in this duty solicitor procurement. Should not the MoJ stop trying to brazen this out, simply scrap this procurement and start again?

[Lord Faulks]

No, that presumes the outcome of the litigation. Disappointed contractors may well feel it necessary to challenge and decide it appropriate, as is their privilege, to use the legal process. We have not yet had the legal process, nor do we know what the result will be. There have already been some preliminary hearings, but we are some way from a full judgment. Both the individuals were employed as commissioning assistants in a junior role. We are in no doubt that what happened was a perfectly appropriate way of assessing the competence of the solicitors and their appropriateness for the contract.

Legal Systems: Rule of Law

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in this terrific debate. I declare an interest as London managing partner of DLA Piper and as a member and City ambassador of the Law Society. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said earlier in the debate, the rule of law in the English legal system is a major source of British influence abroad, as the recent report by the Select Committee on soft power of this House made very clear.

I had the great pleasure recently of participating with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in a conference on the rule of law in Turkey, which was a very timely reminder in that country of the essential values inherent in the concept of rule of law, and I thank him for initiating this superb debate today. Many noble Lords have mentioned the fact that next year we are celebrating the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta through the Global Law Summit and other events. It is particularly important that we hand down this tradition to each new generation and that they are made aware of how precious it is.

The rule of law is not only a philosophical ideal and a bastion of individual rights. Our legal framework is critical to economic development, to the creation of jobs and to a successful market economy. A key factor is the integrity and independence of the judiciary and, as my noble friend Lord Marks said, London has become a world leader in dispute resolution. English legal practitioners are another reason for using English law. We have a long and well respected tradition of excellent legal services based on trust and performance. Huge effort over the past few years is beginning to result in a much more diverse profession, with commitment to the PRIME initiative by an alliance of law firms and legal departments across the United Kingdom to broaden access to the legal profession. Pro bono ethos and practice is much more embedded, too, within the legal profession. The noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead, in his first contribution to this House last December, confirmed his view that the legal services sector is one of the most important sectors for the UK. In fact, it employs almost 350,000 people. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the fact that the rule of law is now one of Britain’s great exports; exports of legal services totalled more than £4 billion last year.

Our law and law firms are becoming ever more international to meet the needs of businesses. Law firms such as my own have responded by becoming international in their own outlook, establishing a global presence. There are close links between legal education, our laws and the legal sector. We attract students from all over the world. This needs to be nurtured. The coming decade promises to see increased competition as other cities such as Paris, New York and Hong Kong aspire to compete with London as a world leader in legal services.

We also face legislative threats such as the common European sales law being proposed by the European Commission as an EU civil law alternative to English common law. Protectionist regulations in growth markets such as India and a number of other emerging markets are, however, a major stumbling block, inhibiting the export of UK legal services and, indeed, opportunities for their own lawyers. The profession and the Government have, rightly, made persuading emerging markets to tear down their barriers to entry a key priority. Staring in 2011, the Ministry of Justice’s Plan for Growth set out the importance of English law and English legal services to the UK economy, and the need to open up overseas markets.

Our position in Europe is vital in achieving this goal. Another benefit from the EU is the freedom of establishment under the establishment directive. No wonder that, according to a recent CBI survey, two-thirds of law firms think that leaving the EU will have serious negative consequences. The challenges we face to ensure that the UK remains the world leader in the rule of law, in our standards of justice, in the provision of legal services and in the opportunities that exist in international jurisdictions are significant. However, we can meet them if we heed today’s warnings. I hope that we will be able to fulfil, as Ken Clarke said when he was Lord Chancellor, the UK ambition of becoming lawyer and adviser to the world.

Housing: Commonhold

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner has been a doughty champion of commonhold and has indeed recorded her interest and Questions on a number of occasions, in the past decade in particular. Of course, commonhold is successful and well established in other parts of the world, particularly Australia. Unfortunately it has failed to attract much enthusiasm in this country. It was originally the creation of the Law Commission in the 1980s. Whether review of commonhold legislation might be suitable for the commission’s further consideration is a question for the Government ultimately to decide. They have to decide priorities in accordance with the protocol but will bear in mind what the noble Baroness has said.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister has pointed out, my noble friend Lady Gardner has on many occasions very effectively brought to the attention of the House the defects in domestic leasehold law. He gave a rather dusty reply as far as the Law Commission was concerned but it has been engaged in consultation about its 12th programme. The decision is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Is it not high time that the whole question of commonhold enfranchisement and leasehold law was considered by the Law Commission?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the 100% rule, which is the subject of the Question from the noble Baroness, was in fact discussed in some considerable detail during the passage of this Bill through Parliament—the original Bill having been introduced by the party opposite. For reasons that we suggest are substantial, it was decided not to make the 100% rule a part of the law. Unfortunately, commonhold has not proved to be popular and there has been a very limited take-up. There is no obvious reason why this should be, particularly with new developments, although I accept it is much more complicated when converting leasehold to commonhold.

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords—

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I think we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

So he knows the affection in which I hold him. However, I do not think that this is an issue for the barrack-room lawyers. It is a time for statesmanship in all three parties.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords—

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I resist completely any temptation to embarrass the noble Lord in relation to the issue of legal aid, something that I have assiduously sought to do over the past six months, but does the Minister accept that Lord Justice Leveson says in his report that any complaint should be made,

“without cost to the complainant”?

Therefore it does not matter whether that comes from legal aid or some other public purse—there should be that complete freedom and guarantee in this regard.

[Lord McNally]

As with other parts of the Leveson report, we will have to look at this. However, one of the things that I know is in the report is the suggestion that, rather than a purely legalistic solution, there should be a road for settling complaints against the press that is cost-free.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords—

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I can assure the noble Baroness of that fact.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, Lord Justice Leveson makes clear recommendations about changes to the framework of the Data Protection Act in terms of eliminating some of the exceptions that currently apply to the media. I note in the Statement repeated by my noble friend that my right honourable friend has certain reservations about that set of recommendations. Is the abuse of personal information not one of the root problems that we have seen during the past few years? Should we not proceed with those changes, particularly in light of the fact that his department would be responsible for making them?

[Lord McNally]

No, my Lords, we should not proceed with those changes but we should certainly move with speed to see how such changes could and should be implemented. The recommendations on data protection came slightly from left field; I am not sure that anyone was fully aware that Lord Justice Leveson would make suggestions in this area. It is an area where we are discussing matters in a European context, in terms of revising the European data directive and our own legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I have already commissioned work within our own department to respond to the Leveson suggestions. As with other parts of the report, we will move forward with all due purpose.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

145A: Clause 54, page 39, line 33, at end insert “, or
(c) arranges for another person to provide, for a fee, marketing services by unsolicited SMS text message, unsolicited telephone calls or any marketing in a hospital or other primary treatment centre.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, first, I declare my membership of the Law Society. As we have discussed both in Committee and on Report, referral fees are one of the major causes of the public’s perception that a compensation culture exists in this country. We have heard some powerful speeches across the Benches on the subject of referral fees. My noble friend Lord Thomas called them insidious and I agree. For that reason I strongly support Clauses 54 and 55.

Although there has been some difference of views on the provisions for referral fees set out in Clauses 54 and 55 as they impact on charities and trade unions, generally there seems to be a common view that although these clauses are useful, if they are to catch all the abuses they need to go further—perhaps not as far as the right honourable Jack Straw would want to go in terms of making it a criminal offence, but covering the full range of malpractices. For instance, there is nuisance marketing in personal injury—specifically, advertising in hospitals, cold calling and spam texts; financial incentives to claim; selling contact and case details of personal injury victims without their consents; and auctioning claims to the highest bidder. Mr Simon Burns the Health Minister recently told English NHS hospitals that it was not acceptable to display advertisements for law firms encouraging no-win no-fee compensation claims. That was a firm and wise action, and I commend it.

In our debate in Committee, my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, on the subject of text messaging immediately after an accident without injury even taking place, made a powerful speech in support of extending Clause 54. My noble friend Lord McNally expressed sympathy with the intention behind the amendment and said that the Government would consider it further. I hope that he will tell us today where the Government have got to. Can we expect white smoke on Report or Third Reading or, indeed, a text message? I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I entirely support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right that this practice is a nuisance. I was half expecting a text message after I told the House about my fall the other day. I thought that eager readers of Hansard in these companies would have solicited my attention or that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, but so far nothing has happened. However, like many of your Lordships, I receive periodic texts and e-mails from organisations saying that I may not have made a claim in respect of my recent accident or, latterly, about payment protection insurance problems, and the like. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, it is an insidious practice and certainly ought to be banned.

I hope that the Minister accepts the amendment and that, if he does not, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, tests the opinion of the House.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, this amendment looks to deal with the serious problem of unsolicited marketing, including text messages or telephone calls about personal injury claims. I congratulate my noble friend on raising an issue which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, indicated, annoys and irritates millions of our fellow citizens. I assure the House that the Government have given careful consideration to this issue since my noble friend raised it in Committee. Legislation, which is primarily enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office, already exists to protect individuals in this area. Recent action by that office has resulted in the confiscation of more than 20,000 mobile phone SIM cards that were being used to send unsolicited text messages.

Following this issue being raised in Committee, my honourable friend Jonathan Djanogly, the Justice Minister, will meet the Information Commissioner to discuss further how the problem can be addressed. Additionally, the ICO, the Ministry of Justice Claims Management Regulation Unit and other regulators continue to work closely with the telecommunications industry on this problem. Across government, an industry working group has been set up and is due to publish a joint guidance note for consumers explaining the functions of the relevant regulators along with advice on how to make a complaint.

On the particular point about advertising in hospitals, the Government do not support the marketing of such services on NHS premises. There is already an absolute ban on unauthorised marketing by claims management companies. We believe that it is more appropriate that authorised marketing should be dealt with through guidance rather than through regulation. In support of this approach, the National Health Service chief executive has recently written to NHS managers to make clear the position on marketing in hospitals and primary health centres.

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue. The Government take it very seriously and are taking positive action. We believe that the answer lies in greater enforcement and robust action, along the lines of regulations and guidance that already exist. We will continue to monitor the situation and take it seriously, and I hope that in the light of that response my noble friend will agree to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It very much falls into two parts, as far as I can see, in terms of action by and with the Information Commissioner and action by the Secretary of State and Ministers relating to unauthorised and authorised marketing in NHS hospitals. The bit I find difficult is not that relating to the Information Commissioner; indeed, it is very welcome that those powers are being mobilised and that the Minister, Mr Djanogly, is having the necessary meetings with the Information Commissioner. The surprising part concerns the National Health Service. I think that the view around this House is that there should be no authorised marketing of this kind within NHS hospitals. What baffles me is why that kind of marketing is allowed to persist within NHS hospitals. I am not going to press the amendment today but I very much hope that we can progress further, certainly in pressing the Department of Health to be much more robust than appears to be the case about this kind of marketing.

Whatever the form of marketing which is an arrangement between a hospital and a firm of solicitors —perhaps advertising law firms within hospitals or allowing texting—it certainly falls morally within the terms of the kind of action that we are trying to prevent within this clause. It therefore really should be covered, and if there is that power within the department —or indeed by any future regulator under the health Bill that has now passed—I very much hope that it will be exercised and that my noble friend the Minister’s department will keep pressing the Department of Health. Perhaps we might even bring this back for an assurance on Third Reading, to understand exactly what is being authorised if there is such a thing as authorised marketing of this kind. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 145A withdrawn.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

165: Clause 54, page 39, line 24, at end insert “, or
(c) arranges for another person to provide, for a fee, marketing services by unsolicited SMS text message, unsolicited telephone calls or any marketing in a hospital or other primary treatment centre.”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 165, I shall speak to Amendments 167 and 168. We are still on Clauses 54 and 55, but we are dealing under these amendments with a rather different set of considerations. Both my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, have mentioned the report from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, Common Sense, Common Safety. He was explicit in stating:

“The problem of the compensation culture prevalent in society today is, however, one of perception rather than reality”.

I suspect that a major reason for the public’s perception that a compensation culture exists has been driven by the actions of ambulance-chasing claims management companies. The existence of referral fees is another major cause of that perception. I very much support the Government’s attempt to solve the problem with Part 2 of the Bill, but legislation designed to end their influence must be watertight. In recent years, it is clear that there have been differing views on how to achieve this. Insurers allege that referral fees are directly responsible for the enormous increase in motor insurance premiums; others allege that insurers themselves have profited from receipt of referral fees for several years by selling details of their customers to panel solicitors or claims management companies. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords, Lord Justice Jackson in his review of legal costs, which reported in 2010, recommended that referral fees in personal injury cases should be banned. Others, however, such as the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, fear that a ban will simply drive fears underground.

The insurance industry does not agree that transparency is sufficient and has welcomed the proposed ban. So too has the Law Society, of which I am a member, but it wants it extended beyond personal injury cases. Others, such as the right honourable Jack Straw, want to go further and make it a criminal offence—not just a matter of regulation—to solicit, offer or pay referral fees in road traffic accident claims. He proposed an amendment to the Bill to that effect last November. The Justice Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Sir Alan Beith, believes that it should be punishable with a custodial sentence. This has been rightly resisted by the Government on the basis that circumstances could be very varied and complex and best dealt with by the regulator. I believe that the current provision strikes the right balance.

There are a number of issues, however, that arise in the course of consideration of the ban. First, the Legal Services Board highlighted the difficulty of defining referral fees. The Motor Accident Solicitors Society, in its evidence to the Transport Select Committee, highlighted the importance of a definition being wide enough to cover all potential commission fees, administrative costs, transfers and any other payments that may be disguised.

Secondly, the purpose of a ban on referral fees is to reduce insurance premiums in future. But how is that to be judged? The benefits derived from a ban may not necessarily be passed on to consumers. Indeed the impact assessment of the proposed ban admits that, overall, claimants might lose out from a ban on referral fees on personal injury cases, with individuals expected to be affected more than business. However, lawyers are apparently likely to incur no net additional costs.

Thirdly, are any other sectors in contemplation that could be activated by Clause 54(4)(b)? Last October, the House of Commons Justice Committee, to which I referred earlier, called for that ban to be extended for other types of case. My right honourable friend Sir Alan Beith, chair of the committee, said that it was “disappointing” that the Government had chosen to limit its enforcement capacity for the most serious cases of abuse of personal information. He added:

“It is likely that Ministers will have to return both to this issue and to the issue of referral fees in areas other than personal injury, where they are taking welcome action”.

It is important, however, that the ban extends to the full range of malpractices. They include nuisance marketing in personal injury, specifically advertising in hospitals, cold calling and spam texts; third-party capture, which was debated earlier; financial incentives to claim; selling of contact and case details of personal injury victims without their consent; auctioning claims to the highest bidder; and marketing that is not accompanied by a service to filter out spurious claims. This is the reason for Amendment 165. The amendment would ban nuisance marketing, which fuels perceptions of a compensation culture and impacts on the ability of genuine accident victims to obtain redress. It would have the benefit of driving the really unscrupulous operators out of the market.

Health Minister Mr Simon Burns recently told English NHS hospitals that it was not acceptable to display adverts for law firms that encouraged no-win no-fee compensation claims. Surely, however, any conflict with the Compensation Act 2006, which allows businesses to operate in NHS trusts with the approval of the facility’s management, must be resolved through primary legislation.

However, there must be clear exceptions. National Accident Helpline exists as a national brand for the marketing activities of more than 100 leading solicitors’ firms around the country. They have told us that this scale of marketing allows tens of thousands of people who would otherwise find it very difficult to access legal support to obtain legal representation and pursue legitimate claims, and that they—the NAH—strictly filter those who respond to marketing. Every year, it tells more than 150,000 people who contact it that they do not have a claim. The NAH contends that if such legitimate marketing, already regulated by the ASA and others, were to be banned, thousands of genuine accident victims would be left without legal representation. That is the reason for Amendment 167.

The ban on purely commercial referral fees must exclude provision of legitimate marketing services that enable innocent injury victims easily to access the requisite legal representation. The ban should also exclude other services under a scheme, such as sales, marketing, product development, vetting of clients, upholding solicitor standards and debt control. Amendment 168 would remove Clause 55(9), which is potentially very damaging to the ability of accident victims to obtain high-quality legal representation.

Some believe that the ban could also be read as banning or capping the legitimate costs of genuine, high-value services. These include the provision of necessary medical reports for clients, quality assurance for solicitor firms, sales and product development. To ban or limit those commercial activities would drastically restrict the ability of legal firms to offer the best advice to genuine claimants. My noble friend the Minister will, I hope, be able to give assurances that any cap excludes these legitimate services such as I have mentioned. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 166A and 166B, standing in my name on the Marshalled List, and to declare my interest as a partner for 44 years in the international commercial legal firm DAC Beachcroft LLP, and the other interests contained in the register.

This gives me an opportunity to respond to one or two comments in the earlier debate. In this important group of amendments we need to focus on the underlying problem of legal costs as much as on the problem of referral fees. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones just reminded us, the Government are implementing another of the main recommendations of Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs. Perhaps I should mention here my personal pride that one of my partners, Andrew Parker, was an assessor to Lord Justice Jackson's review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Apart from the metaphorical slap on the wrist at the end of his response, it was generally helpful. I thank those who have spoken to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made some interesting contributions and it is good to hear that the Minister is looking favourably on those amendments. The phrase about removing the excess from the system is very powerful. My noble friend talked about commoditisation and the possibility of litigation futures. The lawyers are probably salivating at that prospect. A number of noble Lords have recounted their experiences in this area. I will not add to the list of those who have spoken on that. However, I have even received a text message when I have not had an accident, which just shows the assiduity with which these characters operate.

I enjoyed hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bach, going well off piste when discussing the Jackson report in responding to my humble reference to a single aspect of that report, which was then inflated into a general reference to the whole of the Jackson report.

[Lord Bach]

I say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord that of course I remember his comment on Lord Justice Jackson’s report, but in this instance I was referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about that report.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

It is very useful to explain it in that way.

I thank the Minister particularly for his sympathy for Amendment 165. I very much hope that he will carry that forward to Report. Having looked at the existing legislation, I think it would be extremely useful to signpost that measure explicitly in this legislation. I also thank him for his assurance about pooled marketing and legitimate activities on the part of those pooled marketing schemes. They perform a very useful service and it would be a retrograde step if they were not able to continue. I will read with great care what the Minister said about Clause 55(9). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 165 withdrawn.