Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)]

My Lords, I support everything that has been said by every lawyer who has spoken this morning. Clearly, the Bill needs a definition. However, I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said about the difficulty that has arisen in constructing the definition.

The House will not be able to tell whether the Bill will work as a matter of practical justice until we see the definition. It will need to be a broad definition for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. It is easy to foresee that when the Bill passes into law, as it probably will, there will then develop heavy tactical warfare between those acting on the claimant’s side and those acting on the defendant’s side, which will be focused on the precise wording of the definition. If there is undue looseness in the definition, that warfare will clog up the courts and be generally undesirable.

In short—I do not disagree with anything I have heard this morning—it is clearly necessary for the Bill to contain a definition and for this House to consider the proposed definition in minute detail and with great care to ensure that the Bill works when it passes into law.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and my noble friend Lord Faulks. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.

I too have sympathy for my noble and learned friend the Minister. This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves why we need this legislation. Late last night, at a most inconvenient time, I received a call urging me to bring a claim. I do not know how many noble Lords have had the same but there is an industry out there. That is why working out a definition will be quite a challenge.

This problem needs urgent attention. Noble Lords may know that I have been pursuing this line of argument for 15 years. I have watched this claims industry grow and make life intolerable for so many people. In the last 10 years, the number of reported road accidents has gone down by 30%, but in the same period the number of injury claims has gone up by at least 40%. We have a problem.

I received copious briefings from vested interests who are completely opposed to any whiplash reform on the basis that it threatens access to justice for injured people, but a lot of these briefings come from companies with a commercial interest in the presentation of these claims. I think that the threat is more to their income and profits than they are prepared to admit. I want to quote Sir Rupert Jackson, albeit from seven years ago:

“There is currently far too much money swilling around in the personal injuries system and the beneficiaries are not the claimants, but usually the referrers and (when no referral fee is paid) the lawyers”.


He made that point in a different context but it is a good reminder that we are dealing with a pretty serious problem. Governments have tried before to reduce the cost of whiplash claims but the measures used, including the banning of referral fees, have not succeeded in bringing the number of claims in check.

Some noble Lords will try to argue to the contrary although they have not participated so far in the debate, but any reported decrease in the number of whiplash claims is probably because they are being described as something else. A neck injury becomes an injury to the spine or the shoulder or the back. As my noble friend Lord Faulks pointed out, this is a moving target. I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble and learned friend the Minister.

I suppose that this set of reforms is different from what has gone before. It is targeted specifically at reducing the number of claims. In view of the reduction in accident numbers, this must surely be the right target. That is why we have provisions such as a tariff set by the Lord Chancellor. This is a socio-political problem, not a medical or even a truly legal one. It needs a political policy steer, not just to be handed back to judges to exercise controls. Indeed, the Judicial College has acknowledged that this is not its role:

“We stress again that we do not attempt to prescribe what levels of damages ought to be awarded”.


In truth, judges assess very few of these low-value claims; when they do, it is usually because there is an unusual factor involved.

The industry—it is a commercial industry—that brings these claims is highly adaptive. I welcome the opportunity given to us by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble and learned friend to look at the definition. The reforms in 2013 led to an early move by road accident solicitors into industrial deafness claims and clinical negligence claims, and the call that I received last night urged me to bring a claim because of some alleged sickness I had suffered on a holiday I never took. Let us not avoid the fact that we need to confront these waves of claims. There is time for more drastic action. Of course, I agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Noble Lords are well-versed in arguments about Henry VIII powers but in this case, with due respect to the committee, the concerns may be misplaced.

The action that the Government need to take must be radical but also fleet of foot. That is the key to understanding why the majority of the measures are subject to regulations. It is also essential that this Bill does not stray into narrow, overly medical or overly legalistic terms that are easily circumvented. Having said all that, I can hardly wait to hear what my noble and learned friend the Minister has to say.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register, in particular as a partner in the international, commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and as chairman of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. It is also my great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Fascinated as I was to hear his explanation of what lay behind that decision in Wells v Wells—of course I shall respond in much greater detail in due course in Committee—certainly the world has moved on a long way since that original decision.

I hope that the reforms in the Bill are in no sense controversial. They skilfully and fairly balance competing interests. That is never an easy task for government but it is an essential one, and I commend the Minister on his courage and resolution.

Reference has already been made to the many representations we are receiving, and we shall inevitably hear a great deal of noise from all those vested interests on both sides. But we are not here in this House to serve vested interests. It is the public interest we must serve, and it feels as if Ministers have got the balance broadly right. This has not happened by accident, especially on the law relating to the discount rate.

The reform proposals in Part 2 address an increasingly urgent need. As noble Lords have already understood from previous speeches, the lower the discount rate, the higher the cost. England and Wales are now the sole territories in the developed world with a negative discount rate for all future loss claims. For many younger and elderly drivers alike, the consequences have already proved to be extremely costly. That has thrown out any balance of fairness. We must also, as several speakers have mentioned, be aware of the heavy burden the negative discount rate has been imposing on the National Health Service.

Competition law prevents insurers offering any collective undertaking that premiums will fall if and when the discount rate is restored to a sensible level. However, there has still been an unprecedented commitment from individual chief executives across the market that savings would indeed be passed on. I cannot think of another occasion on which industry leaders have come together to make such a public pledge. They are of course responding to a strong lead from the Government, as the Minister made clear.

The Government published Command Paper 9500, The Personal Injury Discount Rate: How It Should Be Set in Future, on 7 September of last year. The Secretary of State then wisely asked the Justice Select Committee in another place to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft clause included in the report, which would change the basis on which the discount rate is calculated. That committee, on which no party has a majority, came to a consensus, in favour of reform, with certain caveats. In particular, the committee supported the establishment of an independent expert panel—not a representative panel—to advise the Lord Chancellor on the discount rate, and any discussion on the discount rate necessarily involves making reasonable assumptions about the likely appetite for risk on the part of anyone looking to invest a sum—particularly a substantial sum—of money.

As the committee and the Government have both acknowledged, setting the discount rate can never be a precise science, but I strongly support the notion that it should have a real-world basis, which is currently rather lacking. The Government are rightly committed to retaining the principle of full compensation, which, as we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is so important, particularly in very serious cases.

We must not forget that this means compensation must be neither too little nor too much. In Paragraph 77 of their response to the Select Committee, I was heartened to see the Government state that they,

“will work to ensure that the panel is ready to start work at the earliest opportunity”.

That is a clear undertaking. Given the very considerable measure of consensus around this legislation, I ask my noble and learned friend the Minister to confirm that arrangements for the establishment of this expert panel can and will begin well before the legislation eventually receives Royal Assent.

I would like to mention Part 1 of the Bill. The discount rate provisions are of vital importance, but the plans for whiplash reform too should be commended as being sensible and uncontroversial. For far too long, we have as a country sustained a system in which there is an unseemly squabble over the value of soft tissue injury claims. That has been far more to the benefit of those paid to do the squabbling than it has been for their clients, the victims. What matters most to their clients is prompt and fair redress, not a mathematically precise assessment of their loss. The idea of creating a fixed tariff for such claims, while novel in common law terms, is the right way forward. It takes the mystery out of how such claims are valued and avoids the use of precious court time in arguing over valuations. It can and must create a smoother process for the claimant, who will rightly be placed at the centre of such a process.

I have been a practising lawyer for exactly 50 years next month—I started life as a claimant lawyer, acting in cases for thalidomide victims. I have to say that claimant lawyers and others with a stake in maintaining the status quo are heavily pressurising me to argue that this is unfair and ill thought through. I believe that the Government have taken account of any legitimate concerns. They have wisely dropped the notion that some claims should receive nothing at all. The sums proposed for the tariff, while low, are more in line with what society can realistically afford to pay for these claims. Let us not forget, it is the wider public who have to fund these claims through higher insurance premiums and the inflated cost of goods delivery.

There are consumers and citizens at both ends of this equation. It is the task of Government to balance the interests of everyone involved. In another place, as we have heard, debate continues today on the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, particularly on how we will contain the excesses of the claims management industry. How many times have we said that in this place? But at last it seems that something is being done. There is a simple answer to the question: it is to contain the amount of money from which they and their hangers-on can take a cut. By their very nature, civil claims set group against group, citizen against citizen.

A decade or more ago, I had the privilege of talking to a very senior senator in Washington, who told me that a complicated and unpredictable system of redress ultimately undermines civility in society. I believe that it does, and I hope that these reforms will go some considerable way towards simplifying redress and restoring the balance of fairness in society. However, I also hope that, in what I think is increasingly an uncivil age, they will serve to restore civility and a healthy respectful relationship between the people in England and Wales.

Leveson Inquiry Update

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am not familiar with the details of the Daily Telegraph article to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, refers, but I note that in due course an apology was made by that publication in respect of the article in question. That in itself might be seen in some quarters as progress.

As regards how the public should see the Government regarding this matter, they have to see the Government taking a decision in the present circumstances, not the circumstances that pertained seven years ago. We have moved on so far as the press are concerned, and I therefore believe that the public can have confidence in the Government’s decision at this time.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as having been the last chair of the Press Complaints Commission and as someone who was involved in setting up an independent regulator which became known as the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

I want to place on record my thanks to Sir Brian Leveson, who I believe did an outstandingly good job. On the first occasion I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry, he gave me some wise advice. It was to call together all those involved in the publication of newspapers and other similar publications to see whether a self-regulator of the press could be created. His wise opinion was something I sought to follow, and I sought to ensure that Leveson recommendations were followed so far as the continuance of the Independent Press Standards Organisation was concerned. I was particularly pleased—although I had no part in the process—when Sir Alan Moses became the first chairman. All I will say to the Minister is that I am very pleased that he has quoted Sir Joseph Pilling’s conclusion that IPSO largely complied with Leveson’s recommendations, but as the Secretary of State points out, there have been further improvements since, and I hope there are more to come.

As we seek to find the best way forward, speaking as someone who started life as a solicitor acting for a very seriously injured thalidomide child, I shall never forget the power of the press in bringing Distillers to book as the manufacturer of that drug. Ever since then I have believed that we need a vibrant, independent and free press that holds the powerful to account and rises to the challenges of our time. I shall not give up now, but I warmly commend this Statement.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I echo the observations made by my noble friend with regard to the work of Sir Brian Leveson. I think all of us in the Chamber can appreciate the work, the effort and the expertise that he brought to bear in respect of the first part of the inquiry, and the considerable public benefit that has enured from that work and the subsequent report.

Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2017

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Lords Chamber

We are now in a position that is profoundly unsatisfactory. What should the Government do? My noble friend Lord Hodgson rightly points to the legislative opportunity that lies with the civil liability Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that there is a significant advantage in having a panel approaching the question of a proper discount rate, rather than leaving the matter to the Lord Chancellor, for the very reasons that he gives. But I suggest that the approach to the proper measure of damages, looking to the future, should not be on the basis of an entirely risk-free approach—it should be on the basis of a cautious investor, or something of that sort. The situation that we now have is not fair to defendants; it is going to fall on those who have to pay increased premiums—often young and elderly motorists—and the NHS and government departments, and the NHS needs all the money that it can get. I join my noble friend in expressing my regret.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, in declaring my interests, as set out in the register, I join my noble friend Lord Faulks in very much supporting the points made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and congratulate him on giving us this opportunity to reflect on the present situation and to look to Ministers expeditiously to resolve this problem. Noble Lords will know that I wear a number of hats in debates in this House, but I speak today as a common lawyer—that is to say, a lawyer who works within the common law. I have had the privilege to practise as a common lawyer since 1968. The assessment of damages for personal injuries has always been a function of the common law. To lapse momentarily into Latin, the founding concept that I was always taught of the law of damages is restitutio in integrum—restoring the claimant as nearly as possible to the financial position in which he or she would have been had the damage or injury not occurred.

For a seriously injured individual, it may be thought next to impossible to put a price on how that is to be delivered, so the law of damages has developed a series of principles designed to deliver a fair outcome—fair, of course, to the injured claimant, but fair also to the person paying those damages. The civil law of damages in this context is never punitive, only compensatory, and we must remember that. The principle is that of full compensation, which is to say neither undercompensation nor overcompensation. It is also known as the 100% compensation principle, which exists to ensure that the claimant, the injured party, is compensated fairly by the person paying the damages.

If there is undercompensation, then the claimant is not fairly compensated. Equally, it is not fair to the defendant if the claimant is overcompensated. As has been said in this evening’s debate, the payment may be made by the Government on behalf of the National Health Service or by an insurer, but it is ultimately funded by insurance premiums or taxes paid by everyone. If the claimant is overcompensated, then he or she is placed in a better financial position than if the injury had not occurred, and the defendant is paying something over and above the amount that is proper and fair compensation.

The discount rate is a vital part of the process of assessing how much compensation is fair. In this respect, it is just like any other component of the sophisticated methods by which lawyers and the courts assess as accurately as possible what a claimant’s losses are and will be for the future. The discount rate is simply a device by which a claimant receiving a lump sum for damages has that sum adjusted to reflect the fact that losses for a period of future years are being paid fully in advance. If that rate, which is set by the Lord Chancellor, is too low, then the claimant will be overcompensated. If it is too high, they will be undercompensated. It is vital that the discount rate should be set at a rate which allows the vital principle of 100% compensation to be achieved: no less, no more. That is not a controversial principle. Indeed, the principle is central to the proper function of the common law.

I was heartened to learn that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Barclay, speaking at a conference on 27 June, stated that the Government intend to keep true to the 100% compensation principle and will put the statutory process for setting the rate,

“on the firmest possible footing in future, so we have a better and fairer system for claimants and defendants”.

In essence this is a question of fairness for everyone involved. When does the Minister expect to publish the Government’s official response to the consultation earlier this year, which I am confident will fully embody the words of his colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury?

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for tabling the Motion on this important topic. I welcome the valuable contributions that he and other noble Lords have made.

As has been observed, the discount rate to be taken into account by the court in determining the rate of return to be expected from the investment of a lump sum award of damages for future pecuniary loss caused by a personal injury is set for England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor under Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996. This is colloquially referred to sometimes as the Ogden rate as in practice it is applied through the actuarial tables published by the working group originally set up by the late Sir Michael Ogden.

As noble Lords have observed, the rate plays a key role in underpinning one of the core principles governing the law of damages. Claimants who have suffered injury as a result of another person’s negligence must be compensated fully for their loss, and should be placed—as far as is possible in financial terms—in the position that they would have been in but for the injury. This is known as the principle of full compensation or the 100% rule. Under this principle, the aim of an award of damages is therefore to compensate claimants fully, but not to overcompensate them or undercompensate them.

To fulfil that aim, where damages are awarded for future pecuniary loss—such as future loss of earnings or the care costs that are going to be incurred—in the form of a lump sum, the award is, and must be, adjusted to take account of the benefit to the claimant of being able to invest the money before the loss or expense in respect of which it is awarded has actually occurred. The discount rate is the factor applied to the award to make this adjustment so that it represents the expected rate of return. The court, of course, has a power to apply a different rate but, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson noted, it has almost always applied the prescribed rate in these circumstances.

The Damages Act 1996 does not specify when the rate should be reviewed. However, the Lord Chancellor is under a continuing duty to ensure that it is not set at an inappropriate level. The rate was set in 2001 on a certain basis. Thereafter, there was consultation on the legal framework for setting the rate. Indeed, in 2013, a consultation was carried through but reached no consensus as to any changes or proposed changes to the legal framework for setting the discount rate. So, as at 2013, the coalition Government, of whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was a member, took no steps to deal with what she referred to as a preposterous state of affairs. Indeed, it was not at that time a preposterous state of affairs.

In 2015, an expert panel advised with regard to the matter of the rate. But in all these circumstances, when it came to 2016 and the beginning of 2017, the then Lord Chancellor had an existing duty to address the adequacy or otherwise of the discount rate. That was her legal obligation. In the light of that duty, she announced on 27 February this year that the rate should be changed from 2.5% to minus 0.75% with effect from 20 March 2017. I note that the Scottish Government made the same change to the discount rate about a week later on 28 March 2017. The then Lord Chancellor also undertook to review the framework under which the rate is set to ensure that it should remain fit for purpose in the future. The consultation paper she promised was published on 30 March. It sought views on a range of issues, including what principles should guide how the rate is set; whether the existing methodology is appropriate for the future; whether the power to set the rate should remain with the Lord Chancellor or move elsewhere, possibly to an expert panel; whether more frequent reviews would improve predictability and certainty for all parties—a point raised by a number of noble Lords—and whether further steps should be taken to encourage the use of periodical payments orders instead of lump sums, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

Underlying the consultation was the wish of the Government to make sure that the way the rate is set is put on the firmest possible footing in future, so that we have a better and fairer system for claimants and defendants, and, in so doing, keeping true to the 100% principle—namely, that claimants are paid no more but no less than they should be. The consultation closed on 11 May and the Ministry of Justice is currently analysing the 135 responses received, which, as might be anticipated, reflect a broad range of opinion as much as they reflect a broad range of interests. This requires considerable care and thoroughness, as many of the responses are highly complex and contain detailed technical information on investment returns and investor behaviour, something the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out could be quite diverse and divergent in particular circumstances.

It is not for me to anticipate the outcome of the consideration of the consultation, but I seek to assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that an announcement of the Government’s conclusions will be made at the earliest possible opportunity. Of course, the interests of all parties concerned will be considered, and there will be an impact assessment.

My noble friend’s Motion is, however, directed at the change of rate rather than the outcome of the consultation. His argument is that the then Lord Chancellor should not have set the rate at a time when she had decided that a further consultation exercise was to take place on how the rate should be set in the future. I venture that this argument is not well founded. As I have explained, the Lord Chancellor is under a continuing duty to ensure that the rate is set at an appropriate level. This means that once the then Lord Chancellor reached her decision on what the appropriate rate should be, she was legally obliged to put that decision into effect. The option of delaying setting the rate until the outcome of the planned consultation was known was simply not available to her.

My noble friend’s regret that the then Lord Chancellor carried out her duty is therefore, I respectfully suggest, misplaced. The then Lord Chancellor acted correctly both in changing the rate and in initiating a consultation on whether there is a better or fairer way for it to be set in future. Had the Lord Chancellor adopted the approach proposed by my noble friend and delayed a change in the rate until a consultation—and no doubt any consequent change in the law—had been complete, she would have knowingly maintained an inappropriate rate for what might have been a considerable period of time. That would have been in breach of her legal obligation with respect to the setting of the rate.

Consequently, the approach taken by the Lord Chancellor was correct in law. In these circumstances therefore, the Government cannot support my noble friend’s Motion, and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it in light of the explanation I have sought to give on behalf of the Government.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may first declare my interests as set out in the register and say what a privilege it is to participate in this debate on the humble Address. Humility is not necessarily a virtue that many voters associate with politicians, but it will be vital in the weeks and months ahead.

On 8 June, the Conservative Party increased its vote from 11.3 million to 13.7 million, winning more votes than Labour ever did under Tony Blair, but we did not win a majority of seats. No one won. No vision of the future of the nation triumphed. No vision of Brexit triumphed. So we now have to work together to find a new common ground. I welcome what the most reverend Primate just said about a good Brexit and a fresh start, but that is never achieved by starting from one or other extreme of the argument.

Last year, the electorate decided that we should leave the political structures of the European Union, and that must and will now happen, but it was not a vote to end ties with our closest neighbours and friends, it was not a vote to rebuild a border across the island of Ireland and it was not a vote for economic self-mutilation. The new common ground must recognise all of that.

I strongly believe that talk of “soft Brexit” and “hard Brexit” is hugely unhelpful. Each term seems to mean whatever any individual wants it to mean. “Nothing propinks like propinquity”, as Ian Fleming wrote in Diamonds are Forever, a phrase often recalled and re-coined by US diplomat George Ball. What matters most now is not Brexit per se but the new “deep and special partnership” we must rapidly forge with our European friends and allies.

I commend to your Lordships the speech made last Wednesday in another place by Kenneth Clarke, the Father of the House—although I reassure him that he is much younger than several of my colleagues in this place. He recommended that Brexit,

“will have to be carried by … an extremely sensible cross-party majority that the House could easily command if we were able to put in place some processes to achieve it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/17; col. 84.]

It was another great Conservative who never became leader of my party, Rab Butler, who described politics as the art of the possible. Brexit is now all about the art of the possible. It falls not just to Ministers but, above all, to Parliament—to both Houses of Parliament —to forge that vital new relationship with Europe. It is we, by ourselves and of ourselves, working with Ministers and across all parties and none, who must build a new, broad and positive consensus.

Happily, we are not alone in our quest for a new arrangement with the rest of Europe that will satisfy a broad spectrum of political and business opinion. I strongly commend the work of the Modern Europe think tank and the paper, not readily noticed, published last August by a distinguished group including Sir Paul Tucker and Jean Pisani-Ferry, a senior adviser to Emmanuel, now President, Macron. Their Proposal for a Continental Partnership is highly reminiscent of the arguments once compellingly put forward by Lord Hurd of Westwell for “variable geometry” in Europe. In business, in diplomacy and even in politics, flexibility is prized more than ever—the one sure antidote to corporate monoculture. So why do we not look now for the bespoke answer to Brexit, too? That will require an orderly withdrawal, a stable transition and a trading relationship with the European Union based on mutual, barrier-free market access.

This is no time for inchoate anger, for brash triumphalism or for putting the interests of party above those of the nation as a whole. Let us not be bound in shallows and in miseries. In a spirit of comradeship, let us all work together to build a new, positive and optimistic consensus as we look to create our new “deep and special partnership”—a special relationship, dare I say—with our most proximate friends and allies in the world, who are of course our friends and allies in the European Union.

Digital Economy Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 20th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made a number of recommendations on Part 5 of the Bill. The Government developed the information-sharing powers through consultation and partnership over a process that started over three years ago. These measures are about improving the way the Government operate for the public benefit. Of course, data sharing must be done with transparency, safeguards and oversight. It is in that spirit that we have accepted the bulk of the committee’s recommendations. The way in which Part 5 is structured in seven chapters to deal with different data-sharing powers has meant that it has taken nearly 100 amendments to implement the recommendations, so I will spare the House from referring to every one in turn. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ashton has written previously setting out all that detail.

Our amendments place the lists of specified persons able to disclose and use information under the public service delivery, debt and fraud powers on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations. We then also narrow the powers to amend the lists. For public service delivery, specified persons will be permitted to share information only for the purposes of an objective which has been expressly specified as applicable to that person, rather than any specified objective. We have also narrowed the ability to set and amend data-sharing objectives for public service delivery, so that any specified objective must support the delivery of a specified public authority’s functions.

For water and fuel poverty, we have restricted the powers to amend the list of support measures and to add to the list of permitted recipients of information under the clause, as the DPRRC recommended. Finally, we have adopted the committee’s recommendations to remove Henry VIII powers to make consequential amendments to primary legislation, as well as to narrow the powers to review and amend the fraud and debt powers. We have ensured that any amendments can be only to improve the operation of the fraud and debt powers and there will be no way to use these powers to undo the safeguards that the Bill provides.

In addition to the DPRRC’s recommendations, the Government have tabled amendments on the following matters. Amendments 28FE and 28FF remove repetition in Clause 60(5) relating to the criminal offences which protect personal information originating from HMRC, Revenue Scotland and the Welsh Revenue Authority. By removing this repetition, the amendments avoid any confusion which might otherwise be caused.

Amendments 28FG to 28FN correct an unintended consequence of measures that were agreed during Lords Committee stage to prevent disclosures by journalists in the public interest being caught by the anti-disclosure offences in Chapter 5. The unintended effect is that the criminal offence which protects personal information disclosed under Clause 60(1), and which originates from one of the tax authorities, now applies only to disclosures made by the person who first receives the information but not those within the accreditation system who subsequently receive the information—for example, to undertake peer review or via intermediaries. These amendments therefore restore a key safeguard to the research power, which ensures that information is protected in all parts of the process.

Amendments 28FW, 28FX, 37 and 38 provide new data-sharing powers for Scottish Revenue and the Welsh Revenue Authority. Clause 70 provides the power for HMRC to share de-identified data, allowing HMRC to share aggregate and general information more widely, for purposes in the public interest. Following discussions with the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, as requested by them, we are providing equivalent powers for devolved tax-raising bodies.

Amendment 28FY, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, is supported by the Government. There is a recognised sound public policy argument for supporting the more effective operation of the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, referred to as ELTO. The discussions at Lords Committee sparked further conversations between HMRC and ELTO officials, resulting in an agreement to take this amendment forward. This Bill has offered a timely opportunity therefore to legislate. The current clause meets the objective of helping ELTO improve its records of employers’ liability insurance policies, making it easier to identify insurers and so enable claimants to pursue compensation. Both parties recognise that there remains some work to do and it is currently unclear as to how effective HMRC data may be in helping to populate missing data. However, an enabling provision would allow more robust testing of the possibilities, with the opportunity to take these forward.

Amendments 40 and 41 enable commencement of measures by area so that the Government can ensure that measures are not commenced for Northern Ireland in the event that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not given legislative consent. Consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly is required on a number of measures, including the extension of public lending right to e-book loans, Part 5 of the Bill on digital government, the Northern Ireland provision in relation to Ofcom and, should the government amendment be agreed, the offence of breaching limits on ticket sales.

In consequence of the potential need to commence the Bill by area, these amendments also provide the power to make necessary transitional provision. The transitional powers will also be used to define small businesses in the statistics chapter of Part 5 until definitions in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 come into force. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I declare my interest as a partner in the global law firm DAC Beachcroft, and other interests set out in the register, including chairing the British Insurance Brokers’ Association and being president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health. Taken at face value, Amendment 28FY would appear somewhat technical, but the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office is working well, but it could work better, and this amendment would help to facilitate that.

I am so grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for the support that they have given to this amendment, which could make a substantial difference to the capacity of the office to help to secure compensation, expeditiously and effectively, for those afflicted by industrial illnesses. When someone faces a reduced quality of life and possibly an avoidably and unnecessarily early death because of an industrial illness innocently contracted, the least that we can do is to deliver compensation as quickly as possible in the hope that the individual with the illness can enjoy at least some benefit from it. I believe that in some small way the amendment will serve to make this a more civilised and compassionate country.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we have two amendments in this group. The Minister was just a little previous in answering Amendment 25YYD on modification, so we do not need to go back to that. Amendment 33ZYD would remove several organisations from the list of specified persons for the purposes of fraud provisions, and the amendment is here to enable us to ask whether all these require the data-sharing gateway or, conversely, whether there are many other government-related organisations; I am not quite sure what the correct term might be for organisations such as the National Lottery or the British Council, but I shall use the term government-related organisations tonight. Are there not others that might use the power? What were the criteria used to select the ones that are in the schedule?

Digital Economy Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I want to ask a question about government Amendments 83A and 83B, which are about water and sewerage. Will these provisions apply only where there is a water meter? I am struggling to understand how they can work if the customer does not have metered water, and whether the information would be relevant—and how it could be used—if that is not the case. I am quite prepared to be told that I have not understood this properly but if I am right, should the provision not spell out that it is confined to that situation? That would make it clearer.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a partner in the global insurance law firm DAC Beachcroft and as chair of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, along with other interests set out in the register.

In speaking to Amendment 196A, I seek to address a small but important point on the operation of the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, or ELTO. Colleagues may recall that I also raised this when we debated the Enterprise Bill in 2015. Although it has been grouped with amendments to Clause 30—I am happy to accept the grouping—it seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 65 in Chapter 6 of the Bill, which deals with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

In 2010, the Department for Work and Pensions identified the need for a tracing office, and ELTO was established in the same year. Sadly, former employees continue to contract industrial diseases, including cancer, due to workplace exposure many years earlier. All too often, the employer is no longer in existence by the time the disease is diagnosed. This was considered by our colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions as a major obstacle to the former employees’ obtaining compensation.

ELTO was established, and the insurers are now required to provide to ELTO details of all employers’ liability policies that have been issued since April 2011. According to the information I have received, ELTO is working well. In the 11 months to the end of November last year, there were more than 178,000 successful searches of the Employers’ Liability Database, but it could be working better.

The piece of the jigsaw that is often missing is the employer’s PAYE reference number. This number is now used to identify an individual employer in the Pay as You Earn system. Each employer is given a unique reference number. If this unique reference number could be applied to the Employers’ Liability Database, it would make searches more accurate, as it would avoid problems of company names’ changing over time. Generally speaking, it would enable the correct employer to be traced.

One major obstacle is that by law ELTO is unable to gain this information under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which prevents HMRC from sharing information except in specified circumstances. Alternatives to primary legislation have already been explored with HMRC. Although we often think of employers as large companies, many are sole traders or family partnerships. For them, the reference number could well amount to personal data, which are rightly protected from general disclosure.

The measure, which I now understand is supported by ELTO and HMRC, is proportionate. HMRC has a ready-made database of these unique reference numbers to which ELTO could be given limited access. All ELTO needs is the reference number itself and the name and address of the employer as a cross check. The amendment would permit ELTO and HMRC to set up, at no cost to HMRC, a facility to share this limited information. It will help make the ELTO database fit for the future.

Many noble Lords will know that I have the honour to be an officer of a number of all-party groups, including not only the Occupational Safety and Health All-Party Group but also the All-Party Group on Insurance and Financial Services, so I should also declare those interests because this amendment is strongly supported by my colleagues on those groups.

This amendment would provide great benefit to employees, employers and insurers alike. I hope my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It is refreshing that, after the debate that we have had on all the concerns and worries that noble Lords have on data sharing, we now hear proposals on how data sharing can benefit various groups. This is our ambition. This is why we set the Bill up as we did and also why the devolved Administrations are so supportive. The noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Kirkwood, Lord Storey, Lord Whitty and my noble friend Lord Hunt all made valuable suggestions. I will come to some of the reasons that we agree or disagree with them, but fundamentally the principle is exactly why we set the system up.

Amendment 81ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, seeks to require the effective maintenance of the electoral register to be specified as an objective in regulations under the public service delivery power. Electoral registration officers already have extensive powers to seek access to information in public records, providing it is for the purpose of ensuring that electoral registers are as complete and accurate as possible. Under current provisions, they would not be able to seek access to other public records for the purposes of identity verification if an applicant’s details cannot be matched against DWP records or local data sources.