Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

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

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant to my former legal practice. A distinguished former Member of this House in the late 19th century, Lord Bowen, who served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, was a noted wit. He it was who wrote:

“The rain it raineth on the just


And also on the unjust fella;

But chiefly on the just, because

The unjust hath the just’s umbrella”.

In its enthusiasm to deprive the unjust claimant in whiplash cases of the umbrella of justice, the Government’s measures, embodied in Clauses 2 and 3, will effectively remove it from the just claimant—a reversal of Lord Bowen’s scenario. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, asserted, this is,

“a proposal which involves a genuine victim of whiplash injuries receiving reduced damages in order to deter a dishonest claimant from bringing a claim”.

Let me be clear. There can be no one in this House who wishes to facilitate false claims. All of us support the need for any claim to be founded on objective medical evidence, and it is right for this to be a requirement of any out-of-court settlement. However, as the Bar Council points out, the effect of the Bill as originally drafted, and the draft regulations that have been published, would result in reductions of between 22% and 89% in compensation for the victims of whiplash injuries for up to two years, coupled with the costs that they will have to bear no longer being recoverable by the defendants. Thus the compensation under current Judicial College guidelines, set in 2017, for a four to six-month duration of injury, would drop from a range of £2,150 to £2,703 to £470 under the draft regulations, and for a 10 to 12-month duration from £3,257 to £3,810 as a range to £1,250. Of course, the new arbitrary figures for damages would relate only to the time factor and not, for example, to the intensity of any pain suffered.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, comes closer to the Judicial College guidelines, but it would be better in my submission simply to delegate the responsibility for certain tariffs to the college rather than to either Ministers or Parliament. That should be a matter for the judiciary.

The Minister’s letter of 7 June contains some welcome changes to the Bill as drafted, including a triennial review of Part 1. However, it contains a statement that underlines the problematic nature of the Government’s response. The Minister avers:

“The Lord Chancellor should set those tariffs which will act to disincentivise unmeritorious claims to reduce costs for all motorists but which will also continue to provide a proportionate amount of compensation where genuine injury is suffered”.


In other words, a genuine claimant is to recover less compensation than he would otherwise receive in order to deter the fraudsters.

But why are the insurers not more rigorous in their assessment of claims, and what happens when the fraudsters cotton on to the implication that they simply need to moderate their claims and the insurers will be content to pay up, effectively on demand, without demanding proper examination of the claim? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, averred in a note circulated some time ago, this proposal,

“involves a genuine victim of whiplash injuries receiving reduced damages in order to deter a dishonest claimant from making a claim”.

There is of course disagreement about the extent and cost of fraudulent claims, which should certainly be resisted by insurance companies. It has been suggested that they have been too ready to settle dubious claims rather than risk the costs of defending them. But, importantly, the insurance industry’s own estimates show that the amount paid out on whiplash claims declined by 17% between 2007 and 2016, while premiums rose by an average of 71%. Meanwhile, premium tax—imposed, of course, by the Government—doubled to 12% between 2014 and 2017, and the cost of repair bills has risen by 33% since 2013. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, gave us further illustrations of where costs are rising. I remind your Lordships at this point that there is not a consensus on the number of fraudulent complaints brought and settled hitherto. Of course fraud must be deterred—but again I say, not at the expense of genuine victims.

Another consequence that is highly likely to flow from the Bill’s proposals is on the working of an already overstretched court system, with the increased number of litigants in person already causing delay likely to rise even further. Perhaps the forthcoming courts and tribunals Bill will impact on this, as more people who work in the system will be empowered to offer advice—although not representation, which is no longer available from legal professionals. However, there must be a risk in reducing the level of expertise in this way.

Amendments 6 and 8 in this group would restrict the application of the clause to 12 months rather than two years. Most cases are in that category, and two years of pain and discomfort is surely too long for the lowest level of compensation. Injuries that are serious enough to last over one year and up to two years are not “minor” by any reasonable definition. The effect of the reductions in damages is the removal of the right to claim full compensation. These are arbitrary and disproportionate measures.

Amendment 7 deletes an unnecessary requirement to mitigate the effect of damages which of course is already part of common law. We on these Benches support Amendment 9. On Amendment 10, there has been much pressure, understandably, for the tariff to be in the Bill. However, the problem with that amendment, and generally with Clause 2, is that the figures would be determined by the Lord Chancellor—with all due respect to former Lord Chancellors in your Lordships’ House. Our view is that, while any changes would be made by secondary legislation, the setting of the tariff should be determined by the Judicial College—and we concur with the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in that respect—in accordance with the practice as exemplified by the 14th edition of the Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases. It should be for the judiciary, not the Government of the day, to determine this, and we do not favour Amendment 10 on that ground.

Amendment 12 goes some way to meet that requirement, but still leaves it open to the Lord Chancellor of the day—now, of course, no longer necessarily someone well-versed in legal matters, as other noble Lords have pointed out—to take a position contrary to that of the judiciary. This could be a troublesome precedent for other areas of justice at a time when it seems to be increasingly difficult to recruit judges of calibre, let alone with the experience of the noble and learned Lords participating in today’s proceedings.

Amendment 29A follows in seeking to leave out Clause 13 and giving the court power where it seems that the tariff is inadequate in respect of damage inflicted. We on these Benches support Amendment 46, which would require regulations for the FCA to report on the effect of insurance practices in relation to premiums and savings.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made a powerful case for removing Clauses 2 and 3 from the Bill. If the real concern is the prevention of fraud, with which we all concur, we should look at other measures. These could include heavier sentences for insurance claims fraud, higher no-claims bonuses and, above all, not punishing a genuine claimant for the misdemeanours of the fraudulent or the laxity of the insurance industry in resisting the fraudster. Of course, the role of claims management companies demands rigorous examination and action.

In the light of our support for the noble and learned Lord’s proposal to delete Clause 2, we will not push our amendments to Clause 2 today, as we hope that the clause will disappear. However, should it remain, we will need to bring our amendments back at Third Reading.

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

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. I will speak to Amendment 6 and to Amendments 7, 8, 9, 10, 11A, 12, 17, 17A, 17B, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 29A, 30, 32, 39 and 46. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I take a little time over some of the points.

I begin by picking up on some of the observations made by noble Lords but will begin with a generality. I sometimes have the feeling that, were some noble Lords faced with an enormous edifice, their response would be, “You have to explain how every component part is held together before I am prepared to believe that I face an edifice”. The reality was outlined by my noble friend Lord Faulks, who pointed out that there has been a 70% rise in whiplash-based claims in the past 10 years, during which time the number of road traffic injuries reported has dropped dramatically and during which time Thatcham Research has identified that the safety of seats and headrests in cars has improved in something like 88% of vehicles on the road, up from 18%.

Seven hundred and eighty thousand personal injury claims arising out of road traffic accidents were reported in 2016-17. That is the totality. Of those, 670,000 were whiplash claims. It is an astonishing statistic, and the edifice, let alone its component parts, is enormous. As some have already observed, there is clearly widespread abuse.

We have heard reference to the need to test the validity of claims. I noted the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to the impact on the courts of increased litigation. One has only to stop and imagine the impact of trying to litigate 650,000 claims in the courts in order that liability can be established and the claim can be tested in each case. The cost implications of that go wider than just the impact on the courts.

There was a call from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to do more to test the validity of claims. Again, one of the difficulties is the sheer magnitude of the problem that we now face. He also alluded to the need for further measures in relation to aspects such as cold calling, which feed this enormous industry.

To address that point, the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 ensure that, where personal data is obtained through an unlawful cold call, further use of that data will not be allowed, and indeed the ICO can impose very large fines. In addition, the Financial Guidance and Claims Act bans any legal person, not just claims management companies, from making unsolicited calls relating to claims services without having first obtained consent. Crucially, changes made by that Act make it explicit that any organisation in the United Kingdom cannot make unlawful cold calls and, in addition, cannot instigate others to do so on their behalf. Notwithstanding that, there is an enormous unregulated industry out there, much of it based abroad where we cannot touch it, and it continues with these practices. It is a major social problem and requires a policy decision.

Touching on the matter of the damages, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to a highly complex judicial process, but I take issue with that. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern pointed out, the assessment of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity is essentially a jury question. Whether you give it to a judge or a jury is neither here nor there; it is essentially a jury question and it always has been.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

11: Clause 2, page 2, line 35, after “injury” insert “or injuries, taken together,”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

13: Clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “injury” insert “or injuries”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

19: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of regulations under section 2
(1) The Lord Chancellor must carry out reviews of regulations made under section 2.(2) The first review must be completed before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the first regulations under section 2 come into force.(3) Subsequent reviews must be completed before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the previous review was completed.(4) The Lord Chancellor must prepare and publish a report of each review.(5) The Lord Chancellor must lay a copy of each report before Parliament.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

21: Clause 3, page 3, line 31, leave out “a whiplash injury” and insert “one or more whiplash injuries”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

28: Clause 3, page 4, line 15, leave out “a whiplash injury” and insert “one or more whiplash injuries”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

33: Clause 4, page 4, line 27, after “injury” insert “or injuries”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

40: Clause 4, page 5, line 6, leave out “a whiplash injury” and insert “one or more whiplash injuries”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, Amendment 46 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Marks, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I am grateful to them all for their support. The amendment addresses the question of pass-through. How much of the savings generated for insurance companies by whiplash reforms would in fact be passed on to motorists, in the form of reduced premiums?

Most of the insurance companies wrote to the Lord Chancellor in March. The penultimate paragraph of their letter said that,

“the signatories to this letter today publicly commit to passing on to customers cost benefits arising from Government action to tackle the extent of exaggerated low value personal injury claims and reform to the personal injury Discount Rate”.

There would obviously need to be clarity about: the definition of a cost benefit; whether all customers would share the promised distribution or just those with motor insurance; and how the savings would be passed on. This might be in lowered premiums or just the promise of lower than expected premiums in the future, for example.

The House of Commons Justice Select Committee again noted the problem in its May 2015 report. Paragraph 3 of its conclusion and recommendations said:

“Potential savings to motor insurance customers are central to the policy justification for these reforms, but we conclude that the Government’s estimate of the pass-through rate may be over-optimistic, given the lack of robust evidence and the unenforceable nature of insurers’ promises to reduce premiums”.


The committee recommended that,

“if the reforms are implemented, the Government work with the ABI and either the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Financial Conduct Authority to monitor the extent to which any premium reductions can be attributed to these measures and report back to us after 12 months”.

Our amendment would require the Treasury to make regulations specifying that the FCA would require all motor insurers to publish a report on the savings made as a consequence of the whiplash reforms in the Bill, and how and to what extent these savings have been applied to reduce motor insurance premiums. It specifies the period to be covered by these reports as 12 months after commencement and how long the insurance companies would have to submit reports to the FCA, which would be three months. The FCA would then have a further three months to make and publish a reasoned assessment of whether the insurers have made the promised passed-on savings. The amendment also gives the FCA the power to request further reports from insurers annually as it sees fit. Finally, it would ensure that the FCA has the power to force the insurance companies to pass on savings if they have not done so, or done so sufficiently, within 30 months of commencement.

I think most if not all noble Lords would agree that the insurers should be held to their promise. To do that, we need to monitor and assess whether they have in fact held to their promise and, if they have not, to have the power to force them to do so. To do these things requires a tough and experienced regulator. Only the FCA has the resource, reputation, toughness and experience to be the regulator to do that, which is why this amendment gives it the job.

I know that the Minister feels strongly that insurers must be held to their promise and I realise that achieving this may be a rather complex matter. However, it is critical that we achieve it. It would be absolutely scandalous if savings made by insurers as a consequence of the Bill were retained by insurers. Amendment 46 sets out a method by which we can hold insurers to account for their promises. I beg to move.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we have on several occasions referred to the savings under these measures, which will be passed on to consumers by motor insurers. I understand that a number of Peers clearly have concerns about ensuring that this actually occurs.

I should say that the Government hold firm that the highly competitive nature of the motor insurance sector will mean that insurers have little or no choice but to pass on savings to consumers or risk being priced out of the market. An in-depth investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2012 found that the motor insurance market is highly price-sensitive, driven by low levels of market concentration and high levels of penetration by price comparison websites. Resulting estimates indicate that 85% of insurance savings from whiplash measures will be passed on to the consumer. Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, observed, motor insurers providing cover to 84% of the UK market have already written to the Lord Chancellor to make the welcome commitment that they will pass on any savings.

That said, the Government are not unsympathetic to the underlying intention of Amendment 46, as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. The point is that having made a firm commitment, insurers should be accountable for meeting it. It is, however, important that any amendment in this regard is drafted with care so that it is effective but does not also impose requirements that push beyond the recognised remit of regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority. I also observe that we must ensure that any legislative requirement in this area does not infringe on the very important area of competition law.

I therefore confirm that the Government will accept the views of Peers and develop an amendment, to be tabled in the House of Commons, that meets these requirements and provides an effective means for reporting on the public commitment made by the insurance sector, showing that it results in savings being passed on to consumers and thereby holds insurers to account. This is quite a complex and delicate process and it is ongoing at present.

I add only one further matter. Requiring a report to be made within 12 months of commencement is not likely to be the best way forward because claimants have a three-year period in which to make claims. After the Bill receives Royal Assent, there will therefore be an overhang for up to three years of claims that fall outwith the requirements for the tariff to be applied. We will have to look carefully as well at what point it would be appropriate for a report to be made and laid before Parliament. However, that is under active consideration and, in light of that indication, I hope the noble Lord will consider it appropriate to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s answer and encouraged by it, too. I take the points about being careful on competition law and the period over which we assess the insurance companies’ return to the people they insure. I will follow with interest the progress of a government amendment as it goes through the House of Commons. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, as it has not emerged that the amendment is the property of the Opposition, perhaps I may add a few words in support of Amendment 47.

Lord Justice Jackson’s report was a remarkable document. It exhaustively analysed the entire structure of our civil justice system. It would not have supported the present Government’s position. I would love to read out the Justice Committee’s report—but, if I did, we would be here awfully late and no one would want to hear it. However, can we briefly recognise that the Justice Committee report is not adverse to the Government’s proposal but deals a series of hammer blows, each one individually worth noting?

“We recommend the Government should not increase the small claims limit to … £5,000”.


Bang.

“There is no policy justification for including vulnerable road users within the reforms proposed”.


Bang.

“We recommend that they be excluded from any higher small claims limit that is imposed on other RTA PI claims”.


Bang.

“We are deeply unimpressed by the inability of the Ministry of Justice to quantify”.


Bang.

And so it goes on. This is not one of those reports with recommendations that obscure their meaning, and perhaps the Minister will consider that as an important feature of this debate.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I will not begin with a bang but I will address the points that have been raised.

I begin by pointing out, with great respect, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, may not be entirely correct in some of the propositions she advanced. She said that the £1,000 limit had been with us since 1999. It has been with us since 1991. The small claims limit in respect of claims other than personal injury and housing claims is now £10,000 and operates effectively and efficiently at that level. That has to be borne in mind as well.

The noble Baroness spoke with her consumer hat on and referred to the small guy. Reference was made to the worker with limited ability to deal with his claim. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to workers being pitched out on their own with no help and alluded to a number of examples given by Thompsons solicitors—I shall come back to that in a moment—of where they were perplexed by the way in which claims were dealt with by insurers. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, said rather modestly that Thompsons solicitors were one of the largest firms of trade union solicitors in the country. They must be the largest by quite a long way. They are well established and have been for many years. Why do we refer to them as trade union solicitors in this context? It is because one of the great benefits of union membership for workers is the availability to them of legal advice and assistance when they require it in respect of a claim, particularly one arising in the course of their employment—which is why legal aid is not available in those circumstances. So, far from the little guy, the worker, being pitched out on their own without any help, they almost invariably have the assistance of probably the largest and most established firm of trade union and personal injury solicitors in the country.

I do not decry that—it is an immediate and obvious benefit—but the disbenefit of increasing the small claims limit is that the extent to which the union will recover its legal costs will be more limited, and that will have an impact on trade unions. I understand that and one has to take it into account in the overall scheme of these provisions.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

The noble and learned Lord will probably accept that somewhere in the region of 6 million people are members of trade unions. That leaves a rather larger workforce who are not represented by trade unions. Those employees are in a more vulnerable position than that faced by those who are represented by a union. My guess is—perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help me here—that the majority of people will not be able to access the support they would get if they were a trade union member. So most people who come up against this limit will be affected by that.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I note what the noble Lord says about national trade union membership, and no doubt the unions will try harder to recruit more widely. One of the obvious benefits they can hold out is the provision of legal advice and assistance for those who become members. I accept that there is a balance to be struck.

Amendments 47 and 48 seek to restrict the increase in the small claims track limit for whiplash injury claims to a maximum of £1,500, as opposed to the proposal that there should be an increase to £5,000. They also seek to restrict the ability of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to make further amendments to the upper limit. As we have indicated before, motor insurance premium costs are increasing as insurers pass on the cost of dealing with the continuing high number and cost of whiplash claims. I referred earlier to the 2017 election manifesto provision that the Government were committed to cracking down on these claims and ensuring that the money saved was returned to consumers through lower premiums. These amendments would maintain the burden on ordinary motorists by restricting the flexibility of the Government to reduce the costs of civil litigation through changes to the Civil Procedure Rules.

Whiplash claims are generally straightforward and do not routinely require legal advice. The small claims track is suitable for such claims. It is designed to be accessible to litigants in person, and the Government are working closely with stakeholders to develop a comprehensive package of guidance and support for users.

The Government have chosen to increase the small claims limit for road traffic accident personal injury claims to £5,000 for good reason. This limit, as I said, has been set at £1,000 since 1991 and, as compensation levels have risen, the small claims track no longer covers the same breadth of claims as it once did. Following consultation, the Government believe that increasing the limit for RTA personal injury claims to £5,000 is a careful and proportionate increase, particularly having regard to the fact that the limit for other claims, with the exceptions I mentioned earlier, is now £10,000. A level of £5,000 will facilitate early and expedited settlement under the proposed tariff structure and will encourage insurers to challenge unmeritorious claims, many of which are not now challenged because of the potential legal costs.

A decision to tie such limits—currently, for good reasons, enshrined in secondary legislation—to a restrictive primary legislative process would be inflexible. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee, under the leadership of the Master of the Rolls, sets out the rules of procedure to ensure that the civil justice system is fair, open and effective. It is the body that sets the financial upper limits for the current three tracks of the civil justice system following consultation. That system has operated effectively for some time. It is flexible and it is appropriate that procedural changes should be made in this way to the civil justice system.

However, we listened to points made earlier about the position of those who are considered to be vulnerable road users. Noble Lords will be aware that they are already excluded from the provisions of Clause 1, and it is proposed that they may be exempted also from the £5,000 limit on the small claims track. We are giving further consideration to that at the present time.

Amendment 48 seeks assurances as to the recoverability of the cost of a medical report in respect of whiplash injury claims, notwithstanding the increase in the small claims track limit. That has been addressed already. The amendment also seeks to change the nature of the small claims track itself by permitting a claimant to recover their legal expenses. We consider that, given the nature of the small claims track for personal injury claims, it would be wholly inappropriate to introduce the recovery of legal expenses. The small claims track was designed to be a low-cost process accessible to litigants in person. The rules have been purposefully and carefully drafted to ensure that both parties share the financial burden of litigation and pay their own legal costs—or, in the case of a union member, have them met by the union. That is a key advantage of the process.

A number of noble Lords have questioned why insurers do not do more to challenge potentially inflated or fraudulent claims, particularly whiplash claims. Part of that answer lies in the cost of defending a claim in the fast track. Increasing the small claims limit so that more of these straightforward whiplash claims—where the insurance industry tells us that liability is admitted in around 90% of cases—are heard in a small claims court will encourage insurers to challenge unmeritorious claims. By contrast, challenging a claim in the fast track is an expensive process that insurers not unnaturally seek to avoid. So there are very clear cost advantages overall in increasing the limits for the small claims track. Where a case is considered to be of a degree of complexity such that it would not lend itself to the small claims track, clearly the court can direct that it should go on to the fast track.

Therefore, in respect of Amendment 48 in particular, the idea of having different cost rules in the small claims court based on the type of claim would create confusion, would undermine the whole purpose of the small claims track and would potentially be unfair to all users of the court system. In these circumstances I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank not the Minister but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—I will get him to move things in future. He is so much more effective than I am.

I was very disappointed by the tone of the response. I stand here as the shadow Consumer Minister, talking about consumers, and we get a sort of suggestion that this is all about keeping trade unions happy. As my noble friend Lord Bassam said, sadly there are only 6 million people in trade unions—I wish it was more. It is exactly the low paid and the people who are most vulnerable to this who are not represented by trade unions—but, even if they were, I do not accept that that makes putting up the limit somehow acceptable.

I will not take up time. I acknowledge a movement on vulnerable passengers—for which, as a cyclist and a pedestrian, I am grateful—but I am afraid that the Government’s own figures show that, by their changes, one in four of the people compensated today would no longer be compensated. If on that basis the Minister thinks that we will save costs—in other words, it is injured people who will pay—I do not think that that is good enough. It should be done not behind the scenes but in the Bill. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I shall attempt to provide some sort of explanation. The amendment seeks a review of what is actually happening in the light of the changing circumstances; it does not prescribe a particular solution. It offers precisely the opportunity for the professions to contribute to ensuring that the arrangements for periodical payments suit the client, particularly those who have suffered significant injuries and may be looking for lifetime support. It is very much an open request, and the expertise of the noble Lord—and others, of course—is very welcome in dealing with it.

Amendment 73A in my name also seeks a different review on the assumptions on which the discount rate itself is based and how investors have dealt with that over time. As will be seen, the review should, I hope, indicate whether the assumptions on which the discount rate is based need to be changed, and set out any recommendations.

This is entering new territory, and it is reasonable to have a report within a reasonable time—three years is probably long enough—to allow a proper examination of the impact of the new arrangements. For that matter, there is a question of course about how often there should be such a review. It would be difficult to prescribe, because interest rates and returns on investments change. We have been living in a fairly good period in terms of returns, but that may not last. So periodic reviews should be very much part of the agenda.

On the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I strongly support the position that he takes and hope that the Minister will feel sympathetic to it and to the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords. In speaking to Amendment 49, I shall also address Amendments 50, 73, 73A and 89. Clearly, we welcome the support on all sides of the House for the appropriate use of periodical payment orders as a means of ensuring that the anticipated future needs of an injured person are met. Of course, periodical payment orders avoid many of the uncertainties inherent in taking damages for future loss as a lump sum.

My noble friend’s Amendment 49 would require new rules of court to be made to highlight features of PPOs that may make them more appropriate than a lump-sum payment for a person with a long-term injury who is risk-averse, who would otherwise receive a large award for damages for future pecuniary loss. In responding to the very similar amendment tabled by my noble friend in Committee, the Government underlined their support for the use of PPOs. However, they also recognised that claimants and defendants must be able to make choices, and that the best choice for any individual is dependent on the circumstances of their particular case. My noble friend Lord Faulks pointed out that under Section 100 of the 2003 Act it is open to the court to insist on a PPO being utilised. As far as I am aware, the court has never actually exercised that power, but it does exist in statutory form.

It is vital that claimants who have suffered long-term serious injuries are well informed as to the implications of their choice between a lump-sum payment and a PPO, irrespective of whether their particular case reaches such a stage that the court has to consider whether to order a PPO. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that appropriate advice is available to claimants in all cases. We are working to encourage the use and understanding of PPOs. In particular, we will over the coming months provide, or at least endorse, guidance that ensures claimants fully understand the choice between a lump sum and a PPO, and investigate whether current advice received by claimants on the respective benefits of lump sums and PPOs is effective.

Over and above that, we have listened carefully to the points raised in Committee and in further engagement with noble Lords. I am obliged to many of them for their engagement in the period running up to this stage of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor has now written to the Master of the Rolls on this matter, and I am pleased to say that he has recently agreed in principle to the Civil Justice Council, with its specialist expertise, exploring the issue with a view to suggesting the most practical, beneficial steps to increase the use of PPOs within the current system. The Government are grateful to the Master of the Rolls for this.

Taken together, we believe that these steps will ensure that focused and practical action will be taken to identify effective reforms that will encourage the use of PPOs whenever they are suitable. These measures can be tailored to address specific identified problems. Rules of court may be part of the solution, but they will relate to the practice and procedure of the courts. That is the appropriate function of rules of court and their related practice directions, not providing guidance as to when one form of taking an award of damages might be better than another, which might be better in guidance itself. In light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend would consider it appropriate to withdraw his amendment.

I turn now to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which, as he says, would require the court to consider certain factors in deciding in an individual case whether it would be appropriate to take into account a different discount rate to that prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. As he pointed out, the wording in the present Bill reflects almost exactly the wording that appeared in the original provisions in the Damages Act 1996. The application of those earlier provisions is, of course, coloured by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warriner, and the more recent decision in the Inner House in Tortolano. In light of that, I wish to give further consideration to the matter that the noble and learned Lord has raised to come to a view as to whether something might be done to tailor the wording to address the almost complete guillotine that is, in effect, in place in the two Appeal Court decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I said that my amendment was designed to tilt the balance in favour of PPOs, and I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. It is good to know that guidance will be rewritten to draw attention to the PPO advantages, and to hear the news that the Lord Chancellor has written to the Master of the Rolls on using the Civil Justice Council to make improvements in that regard. Before I withdraw my amendment, can my noble and learned friend say how long he thinks it will be before the Civil Justice Council produces some results from that discussion and consultation?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I cannot at this stage answer that question. However, I will consider the point and write to my noble friend, and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend and, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

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

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. In speaking to Amendment 53, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I shall speak also to Amendments 56, 60, 63, 69, 75 to 77, 79 to 86 and 88. I shall not, however, be speaking to the amendments in the next group, although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to them. On that point and the submissions made by him, the period for review is not fixed either at three years or five years. It is not the case that review would not be available in years one to four if it was five years. The Bill is clear that the three-year period following the last review is the outlier—it is the maximum period—and it is there to ensure that we do not face the situation that we have had in the past where, for one reason or another, no review takes place over many years whether or not a panel or anyone else believes that such a review should have taken place. I wish to make that clear.

The reason we have grouped the amendments in the way we have is because they are generally concerned with the creation of a standing panel or make provision for the panel rather than the Lord Chancellor to determine when the rate should be reviewed and how it should be set. Amendment 53 would replace the system proposed in the Bill for reviewing the discount rate with one without time limits under which the need for the rate to be reviewed would be determined by the expert panel; and it provides that the panel will make its decision by reference to whether the nature of returns on investment has sufficiently changed for a review to be needed. I recognise that Amendments 56 and 60 are consequential drafting amendments on Amendment 53 to remove references to the three-year maximum period that we find in the Bill.

Amendment 77, again in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, would make the obligation on the Lord Chancellor to establish the panel a one-off obligation rather than an obligation on the occasion of each review. Again, that is clearly consequential—as is Amendment 81—because if there is a standing panel there would be no need to deal with the simultaneous review as the panel would not cease to exist at any point.

Amendment 63, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Sharkey, would require the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the views of the panel in deciding when to commence any subsequent review of the rate. The expectation underlying the proposal is that the panel will be established again on a permanent basis. I will come back to the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about that in a moment.

Amendments 75 and 82 would require the panel to be responsible for advising the Lord Chancellor, broadly on an annual basis, whether the rate should be reviewed and also for advising him or her in respect of the second and subsequent reviews of the rate. Again, Amendments 76, 79 and 83 through to 86 are consequential on these changes.

On the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about who the Lord Chancellor would consult in deciding whether or not there should be a review if there was no standing panel, the answer is that he may consult who he wishes in that context—for example, it is open to him to consult with the Government Actuary and Her Majesty’s Treasury as to whether or not economic conditions are such as to prompt him to consider a review. There is no limit as regards the inquiries he may make in order to inform his decision—I emphasise his decision—as to whether or not a review will be required.

The panel’s expertise will be in technical matters and its introduction will inject expertise and help to ensure that the rate is reviewed properly with full expert consideration of the issues. However, deciding whether the current rate is no longer appropriate engages issues of judgment as to the level at which the rate should be set and we do not consider that the panel would be well placed to make that decision. It is a question not only of monitoring investment returns, but of making a broader judgment as to the social impacts of, for example, a change in the rate.

The Government therefore consider, as did the Justice Select Committee, that the Lord Chancellor should be responsible for this decision. To ask the panel to make, in effect, a substitute judgment as to what the rate should be would be contrary to its nature as an expert panel in providing merely technical advice. Again, we do not consider that the panel should be in that decision-making position. The Lord Chancellor, of course, has to make a properly informed decision in reaching a conclusion on the outcome of a review.

We have listened to concerns expressed by noble Lords and others in Committee that a long-stop fixed review period might result in all parties to litigation somehow engaging in what is termed gaming the system in expectation of a change to the rate. Obviously, we share a desire to ensure that as far as possible that sort of conduct does not take place. On one view, a standing panel might mitigate some of the potential gaming at the end of a fixed period, but we fear it would increase the frequency of gaming around the intervals at which the panel would meet. Claimants and defendants can also watch changes in rates of return, and it will not take long for them to anticipate when there might be a degree of change in investment returns that might trigger the panel’s interest in a review. We consider that whichever route we take there is always the risk of gaming. It is something we want to minimise, but we are not persuaded that a standing panel would be the means by which to minimise the gaming of the system, as it has been termed.

Delivering regular and broadly predictable timings for reviews was the principal concern of those we consulted when they replied to the consultation in March 2017. We know from responses to the consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny that the majority of claimants and defendants want and benefit from certainty and predictability. We consider that the approach proposed in these amendments would make the system less certain and perhaps less predictable. We consider that the present approach will deliver a process that will see the rate reviewed at least every three years following the first review. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, conceded, it is not a fixed term. This will ensure that there is not the possibility that the rate will again be left without formal review for a period of about 16 years, but, of course, the Lord Chancellor will be able to review the rate at any time in the period if he or she consider that the rate is no longer set at the right level.

The reality is that there will always be litigants anticipating what may happen because of changes in the market and seeking to take advantage of them, but we must seek to mitigate and minimise that risk. I emphasise again that the fixed period within which a review must be begun is a maximum period.

I accept that in theory it would be possible to combine a standing panel with the Lord Chancellor deciding when the rate is to be reviewed, but such a panel would probably be inactive for considerable periods and it would increase the level of cost and bureaucracy required. That is something that we do not consider desirable. While the precise estimate for these will depend on how often the panel would consider whether there should be a review, a permanent appointment would require some form of continuous funding and administration.

Amendment 88, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, would remove the provisions in paragraph 8 of the new Schedule A1 that cover the possibility of the Lord Chancellor deciding on the occasion of the review to set no rate or no rate for a particular class of case. They make clear, for example, that a reference to a review of the rate includes reference to a review of a situation where no rate has been prescribed. Even if the Lord Chancellor decided not to set a rate, paragraph 8 ensures that the review mechanisms in the Bill will still apply and that “no rate” will be reviewed at the next appropriate juncture in the same way as if it had been a rate. The provisions of paragraph 8 do not, contrary to some of the fears expressed in Committee, provide a means for the Lord Chancellor simply to dismantle the machinery for the required reviews of the discount rate.

It may be helpful in understanding paragraph 8 to consider the present law. The new section A1(1) reproduces provisions in the Damages Act 1996 that indicate that the court must take into account such rate of return, if any, as may from time to time be prescribed by an order made by the Lord Chancellor. The wording implies that the Lord Chancellor might decide to set no rate under the present law, and the provisions in paragraphs 8(2) to (4) are intended to clarify how this power would operate.

I concede that the possibility of no rate being set for some or all classes of case may well seem an unlikely eventuality. However, just as is envisaged in the present law, circumstances might arise in which a category of rather unusual cases occur that call out for individual assessment of an appropriate discount rate. Preserving a “no rate” provision would enable the parties in the cases affected to plan their litigation with the certainty that the discount rate would have to be settled as part of the case. That would be a potential benefit for claimants and defendants in unusual cases. Removing these provisions would be unhelpful to future users of the Bill.

Amendment 80 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Sharkey, aims to indicate that the four appointed panel members are expected to approach the work of the panel as experts with the objective of advising the Lord Chancellor in a way that is fair to the interests of both claimants and defendants. This is the spirit in which the appointed panel members are intended to approach their work. That is one of the reasons why they are required to take account of the duties imposed on the Lord Chancellor in determining the rate. The amendment is expressed in terms that appear to be aspirational in nature rather than obligatory, leaving us a little uncertain as to what the effect is intended to be.

The Government have already made clear in the response to the Justice Committee our intention to recruit panel members who will act as independent experts and that appointed panel members will be required to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The provisions in the Bill and the assurances already given will lead to advice from the panel that will be fair to the interests of claimants and defendants. We do not consider that any further express provisions are needed in order to ensure that result.

Amendment 69 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, raises the question of the Lord Chancellor being expressly required to consult the Lord Chief Justice during the review process. I note the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks with regard to the potential implications for the Lord Chief Justice. There are some grounds for that because under other legislation—such as, for example, the 2007 Act with respect to the regulation of the legal profession—there is a provision where a party applies for regulatory status, but the Lord Chancellor will consult with the Lord Chief Justice on such an application. Indeed, that occurred recently; the Lord Chief Justice gave his opinion and that is now subject to scrutiny in the context of an ongoing application for judicial review. It is a rather unfortunate situation that the views of the Lord Chief Justice, which he is obliged under the statute to express, come under the scrutiny of his own Administrative Court. So there are potential difficulties here.

Nevertheless, I recognise the force of the point that is made under reference to Amendment 69. On the one hand, I can say that the Lord Chancellor is of course free to take evidence on the question of how he is going to fix the rate, and that could include evidence from the Lord Chief Justice, but that is hardly a complete answer to the suggestion that he ought to be consulted. In light of what has been said on this matter, having regard to the difficulty that was identified by my noble friend Lord Faulks, I would like to take that proposal away and consider it further in anticipation of Third Reading. I will give it further thought and will be happy to speak to noble Lords on that point in due course. In the meantime, I invite my noble friend at this stage to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl about Amendments 68 and 71, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced about the five-year period as opposed to the three-year period, and find myself in the rather strange position of agreeing with the Minister. It is not as though all claimants will be five years off a review. Some will be and others will not necessarily be. There will be different timescales for individual claims, and I do not think five years is necessary to protect the integrity of the system. Some people will try to game, whatever the period. Five years is not necessarily more likely to protect against that than otherwise. Rather unusually—I am sure the noble and learned Lord will stick to the three-year period in the Bill—I will have to agree with him.

I should like to say at the end of this very long day that the House has done its usual very good job of scrutinising difficult legislation. It is a little late to try to recall everything that we have discussed and agreed, but a good job has been done today and I hope the Bill will be improved. The Minister has offered to consider a number of matters before Third Reading—and, in any case, the Bill will go somewhere else in another week’s time and come back to us eventually for further consideration. There may be changes that we have to consider at that stage.

On behalf of these Benches—or what is left of us—I thank the Minister for his running of the Bill. He has been more than willing to talk to colleagues, even when some of them, like me, are rather slow on the uptake in this rather technical area. It is not one where, in practice, I had very much to do with cases at this level, as a personal injury lawyer—thank heavens. Around the House, we have heard some very important contributions from Members from all sides, and there is every prospect of further changes being made at Third Reading or in another place on the basis of the level of debate, discussion and argument that we have had. That is a signal tribute to the work of the House.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions, not only to this grouping but to the debate as a whole that has taken place this afternoon and evening. In speaking to Amendment 54, I shall speak also to Amendments 57, 61, 62, 67, 68, 70 and 71. I do so because, although they were not formally moved in this grouping, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made it clear that he was addressing the amendments in this group when he spoke earlier. I appreciate his determination not to repeat himself.

As I explained in Committee, the choice between three and five years is not one of principle. The three-year period adopted in the Bill represents a compromise approach based on the responses received to the March 2017 consultation, which included a wide range of views, ranging from automatic reviews at short intervals up to a 10-year fixed maximum. We have listened carefully to the arguments this evening and in Committee from noble Lords about the potential for the gaming of the system, depending on whether there is a three-year or five-year maximum between periods.

I note the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who brought himself to agree with the Government on this matter. Tempted as I am to move away from the Government’s position in light of that, I maintain that, overall, it would be appropriate for us to look to three years. But there is no clear-cut case, and I am perfectly content to speak again to noble Lords before Third Reading if they wish to make further representations to the Government with regard to the period. So I do not close the door on that, but our position is that three years would be appropriate, and we would have to be persuaded by something that might be termed “new evidence” before we would consider moving away from that position. However, as I say, the door is open.

Amendment 67 largely replicates the provisions already in the Bill for the conduct of a review, but applies them only to the second and subsequent reviews, in light of Amendments 65 and 66. But Amendment 67 in isolation makes a relatively small number of changes to the procedure for the conduct of the second and subsequent reviews. First, it adopts the language of advice rather than response to describe the panel’s reply to the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, it makes clear that it is not just the question of whether the rate is to be changed but what the new rate is to be that is subject to the provisions for determining the review in paragraph 3 of the new Schedule A1—and that, in reaching these decisions, the Lord Chancellor should have regard to the advice from the panel. Finally, that amendment would introduce a requirement that the Lord Chancellor will consult the panel within 10 days of the start of the 180-day period for the completion of the review. This is new, but noble Lords’ proposals for the first review contain a similar provision, albeit with a 25-day period, and we are conscious of that.

Courts: Modernisation

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when legislation to modernise the courts system will be introduced, as set out in the Queen’s Speech.

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

My Lords, the Government introduced the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill into the House of Lords on Wednesday 23 May of this year. This legislation is the first step in implementing the wider reform package and the Government remain committed to implementing further court reform legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, it was nice to have such a quick response after tabling my Question but it really is a little mouse of a Bill. It has some useful provisions but why has it been stripped of almost all the court modernisation measures which were promised in the Queen’s Speech? How is it that halfway through a two-year parliamentary Session the Government have not found time for urgently needed and relatively uncontroversial provisions to enable the courts to modernise and speed up processes which cause delay and distress to court users, and which cost money that could be better spent improving access to justice?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, this is a mouse that roared. It may be a small Bill but it has extensive implications for the operation of our court system. Splitting the legislation originally set out in the Prison and Courts Bill will allow the Government to progress these vital reforms utilising the time available in both Houses.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, one matter that the Bill does not deal with is what was addressed in Clause 37 of the Prison and Courts Bill. It provided for rules for an online procedure in courts and tribunals in appropriate cases. The Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has recently stated the urgent need for such procedures. When will the Government act on this much-needed reform?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, we intend to bring forward all of the reforms anticipated in the original Bill, which fell at the time of the general election, and we will do so as and when parliamentary time allows.

[Baroness Couttie (Con)]

My Lords, the Federation of Small Businesses is concerned that, with the online court system that has just been mentioned, there will be several disputes that small businesses will not be able to use the system to resolve. I would like to understand what the Government are doing for the offline dispute system to ensure that it is speedy, effective and cost effective in resolving some of these more difficult disputes.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, first, with regard to the online system, which is being piloted in a number of areas, over 16,000 people have already engaged with the pilots relating to online matters such as divorce and minor pleas in road traffic cases. In addition, we have the online system with regard to payment claims. We appreciate that there are those who will continue to have to engage with the offline systems and we are of course concerned to ensure that we make further progress with regard to court reform. But as I indicated earlier, that will be brought forward as and when parliamentary time allows.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, what we need is accessibility: a set of proposals, properly financed, for court staff, in person and over the phone, court documents and online resources all to be committed to helping court users, particularly litigants in person, to navigate their way through the litigation process. This will mean court officers changing their traditional position that they are not there to give advice. What proposals do the Government have along these lines?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, there is no reason why reallocated court staff will not be in a position to provide advice as they have in the past. We are at the commencement of an extensive reform of our court processes. Indeed, I quote the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals:

“While there is still much work to do, the introduction of this Bill is a positive first step in legislation to deliver reform”.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Carlile’s inquiry into youth justice were, in particular, to use youth courts, not adult courts, for young people, and more problem-solving courts. Does the Minister agree that we need to be more effective in dealing with young people in the courts so that we stop the revolving door into custody?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Earl.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s concept of modernisation of the court system seems to include court closures up and down the country and a reduction in the availability of legal aid, which has led to a growth in the number of litigants in person, causing great delays in the courts. In the circumstances, is it not the Government’s duty to ensure that any modernisation of the system is reflected in securing access to justice as opposed to making some fairly minor financial savings?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, of course what is paramount in the context of this reform is access to justice. As the reform programme progresses, we expect that we will need fewer courts and we will continue to review our estate to make sure that it is able to maximise the benefits of the reformed courts and tribunal service.

[Lord Vinson (Con)]

My Lords, there is an associated problem: the high cost of litigation. With lawyers’ fees running at around £575 an hour and barristers’ fees at more than £1,000 an hour, people are priced out of justice. Is it not time that this cabal against the public is looked at and examined by the Competition Commission?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I cannot accept the estimates of counsels’ fees that have been advanced at either the lower end or the higher end. Of course we are taking steps to contain the cost of access to justice, and it is important that we do so.

Rape Trials

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

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

My Lords, the Government are clear that ensuring disclosure requirements are met is vital for a fair trial and public confidence. The Attorney-General is leading a wide-ranging review of disclosure practices and aims to report by the summer. The findings of the review of rape and serious sexual offence cases, published by the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday, will feed into a wider operational response to delivering necessary improvements in the system.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords, the disclosure of unused material that assists the defence or undermines the prosecution is vital to a fair trial. Does the noble and learned Lord still stand by his earlier reply that we have not gone backwards? Would he like to comment on yesterday’s evidence by the Director of Public Prosecutions, which differs wholly from her bold assertion in January that she did not think disclosure failings would have led to people being wrongly jailed? Where is the failure to grip the situation: the police or the CPS?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the review that was undertaken involved consideration of 3,637 cases in the period between 1 January and 13 February this year. In respect of those cases, 47 were identified where there were concerns about the management of disclosure. However, that does not mean that this was the reason for the discontinuance of the prosecution in each and every one of those cases. There is of course concern that disclosure should be carried out fully and properly pursuant to the legal requirements of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. That obligation lies not only on the police and Crown Prosecution Service but on the defence, which is required within a certain period—28 days—to give a defence statement. That, in itself, indicates where there may or may not be room for further investigation of material that could pertain to the prosecution case or assist the defence. It is necessary for all parties involved in this process to engage in order that it can be properly discharged.

As I indicated earlier, further work is being undertaken by the Attorney-General to deal with this question, which we hope to report upon by the summer. I do not accept that we are going backwards. Technology is going forward, and very quickly indeed. We now live in an environment in which there are vast quantities of social media apps—Instagram, Facebook and the like—that can be contained on one or two mobile devices and which make demands upon the police service, the Crown Prosecution Service and indeed the defence. They did not exist 10 years ago. We are seeking to meet those demands; it is important that we do so.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the number of recent cases collapsing following late disclosure—many of them well publicised—is frankly a disgrace. It is made even worse because it has often happened when defendants have been remanded in custody pending their trial. The Director of Public Prosecutions says that the prosecution is disclosing relevant evidence to the defence in the vast majority of cases, but it needs to be—so far as it can be achieved—invariable. I hear endless anecdotal reports from criminal lawyers that these failings are widespread and attributable largely to a lack of resources, often to download and go through smartphone records—as the noble and learned Lord’s last answer implicitly recognised. We accept that trawling through records harvested from confiscated smartphones is time-consuming and expensive, but fairness and justice require it. Can the noble and learned Lord guarantee that the Government will respond to recent failures by giving all necessary resources to be devoted to this work to ensure that we achieve full disclosure of relevant material to the defence?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we must always aspire to full disclosure in circumstances when material could otherwise undermine a prosecution or assist the defence to a criminal charge. No one would doubt that for a moment. As I understand it, there has been no complaint to date about a lack of resources as regards the police and the CPS. I go back to the point I made earlier, that these obligations with regard to disclosure extend beyond the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to the defence as well. I am not in the business of giving guarantees, but we will look clearly, unambiguously and carefully at the findings of the Attorney-General’s investigation in the summer and will respond appropriately to its conclusions.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

How can the obligations imposed on the defence by the 1996 Act excuse or explain failures by the prosecution to disclose relevant material?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

They do not necessarily explain such a situation. However, in circumstances where the defence actually obtempers its obligation to provide a defence statement, it is possible to identify further areas of inquiry for the disclosure of material. For example, if the defence statement discloses that that there was a pre-existing relationship between a complainer and the defendant, it will be possible to make further inquiries to ensure that material that might otherwise have gone unnoticed is disclosed to the defence. Therefore these matters are connected.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will my noble and learned friend clarify his comments on social media and the extent to which, in cases where the prosecution has information that is available on social media, it is disclosed to the defence counsel?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

In circumstances where it has been possible to download material that involves communications either between a complainer and the accused or between the complainer and third parties, that material will be analysed and all relevant material will be taken and disclosed to the defence. Of course, it is not always possible to access this material. We now live in an environment of encryption and of WhatsApp and Instagram, where sometimes this material is simply not accessible.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

What about those cases where men have been found guilty and are in prison, and there was inadequate disclosure during the course of their trial, whereas if there had been full disclosure they would have been found innocent? Are they simply to be left in prison and not have their cases reviewed?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am not aware of any such cases. However, clearly, we have a series of filter mechanisms in our criminal justice system that includes the criminal cases review operation where there has already been a conviction and material comes to light.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has referred several times to the obligations placed on the defence by the 1996 Act. Is he suggesting or is he aware of any evidence which indicates that some of these cases that have collapsed have done so as a result of a failure by the defence to meet its obligations under that Act?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Recent inquiries indicated that in something like 25% of cases a defence statement was not produced or not produced timeously.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he had not heard that a lack of resources was to blame for these failures. He may not have heard my noble friend the former Director of Public Prosecutions say on “Newsnight” last night that he felt that it was as a result of a 25% reduction in funding for the CPS and the loss of hundreds of lawyers—and, I add to that, the loss of thousands of police officers and an ongoing 25% reduction in their resources could be to blame.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I note the noble Lord’s careful use of “could”. That is why we will await the outcome of the present inquiries and investigations before we draw any conclusions.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, did my noble and learned friend see that rather disturbing programme about the Criminal Cases Review Commission? He referred to that commission. Is he entirely satisfied that it is working in a proper and seemly way?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am not a regular viewer of the television and I am not aware of the programme to which my noble friend refers. However, at present there are no indications that the criminal cases review operation is not operating in accordance with its remit or that it is not capable of discharging its functions.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the chief constable of Surrey has described the situation as having had a “catastrophic effect”. It is two years since warnings were first given about this problem. Will the Government now ensure that further inquiries are made for the period before that time to see whether other cases need to be dealt with? Will he also ensure that a view will be taken not just in relation to sex offences, which have been the subject of the present findings, but across the field of criminal offences? Clearly, there is a risk that we will see the same kind of failings affecting other offences.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, a joint justice systems inspectorate investigation on disclosure issues took place in 2016 and the report was published in July 2017. We were in the process of implementing a series of recommendations when a number of further cases arose in early 2018, and that is what has given rise to the Attorney-General’s determination that there should be a review. We will await the outcome of that review before taking further decisions with regard to disclosure. However, disclosure is not of course limited to cases of rape or other sexual assault. We appreciate that this issue has to be addressed across the board so far as the criminal justice system is concerned.

Proposed Media Mergers

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the other place:

“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement about the proposed merger between Comcast and Sky, and the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky.

In my quasi-judicial role I have considered these mergers separately, on their own merits, and want to set out my decisions taken on the basis of the relevant evidence. I would like, first, to update the House on Comcast’s proposed acquisition.

On 7 May, Comcast notified an intention to acquire Sky. As Secretary of State, I am required to consider whether the merger raises public interest concerns that meet the threshold for intervention, as set out in Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002. As required, I considered the need for a sufficient plurality of people with control of media enterprises, the need for a wide range of high-quality broadcasting and the need for a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards.

Last month I informed the House that I was minded not to intervene in the merger on the basis that it does not meet the threshold for intervention. I gave interested parties time to make representations and I received no further representations. As a result, I have concluded that the proposed merger does not raise public interest concerns and so I can confirm today that I will not be issuing an intervention notice.

Turning to Fox’s proposed acquisition of Sky, in March 2017 my predecessor issued an intervention notice on public interest grounds due to concerns about media plurality and the genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. The intervention notice triggered phase 1 investigations by Ofcom and the CMA. In September, having considered these reports, along with further advice from Ofcom, she referred the proposed merger to the CMA for a phase 2 investigation on both grounds. The CMA published its interim report in January and provided its final report to me on 1 May. I have today published this report and deposited a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

The report confirms, as previously set out, that the proposed merger passes the threshold for a relevant merger situation and provides recommendations on both public interest tests. On broadcasting standards, the CMA carried out a thorough and systematic assessment, taking into account Fox’s and Sky’s approach to broadcasting standards, both in the UK and outside, and the approach of Fox and News Corp to wider regulatory compliance and corporate governance. The CMA concluded, in line with its interim findings, that the merger may not be expected to operate against the public interest on the grounds of a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. I agree with this finding.

On the question of media plurality, the CMA’s final report confirms its interim findings that the proposed merger may be expected to operate against the public interest. The CMA found cause for concern in two areas: first, the potential erosion of Sky News’s editorial independence, which could in turn lead to a reduction in the diversity of viewpoints available to and consumed by the public; and secondly, the possibility of an increased influence of the Murdoch Family Trust over public opinion and the UK’s political agenda.

The CMA has used a clear and logical approach and taken into account Ofcom’s media plurality framework. It has taken great care to obtain a wide range of written and oral evidence and I agree with this finding too. Where the CMA makes a finding that a merger is likely to operate against the public interest, it is then required to consider what remedy would be appropriate.

To address the media plurality concerns, the CMA considered a range of options, including those proposed by the parties. Specifically, these were: first, a firewall of behavioural commitments to insulate Sky News from the influence of the Murdoch Family Trust; secondly, a ring fence, whereby Sky News would be separated structurally from Sky but still owned by Fox, along with the same behavioural commitments; thirdly, divesting Sky News to a suitable third party; and fourthly, prohibition of the transaction as a whole.

I have considered the CMA’s detailed assessment and its conclusions on how effective and proportionate the different remedies are. I agree with the CMA that divesting Sky News to Disney, as proposed by Fox, or to an alternative suitable buyer, with an agreement to ensure that it is funded for at least 10 years, is likely to be the most proportionate and effective remedy for the public and for the public interest concerns that have been identified.

The CMA report sets out some draft terms for such a divestment, and Fox has written to me to offer undertakings on effectively the same terms. The proposals include significant commitments from Fox, but there are some important issues on the draft undertakings which still need to be addressed. I need to be confident that the final undertakings ensure that Sky News remains financially viable over the long-term, is able to operate as a major UK-based news provider and is able to take its editorial decisions independently, free from any potential outside influence. As a result, I have asked my officials to begin immediate discussions with the parties to finalise the details with a view to agreeing an acceptable form of the remedy, so that we can all be confident that Sky News can be divested in a way that works for the long term.

Under the legislation, I am required to consult formally for 15 days on the undertakings. Subject to the willingness of the parties to agree the details, I aim to publish this consultation within a fortnight. I am optimistic that we can achieve this goal, not least given the willingness that 21st Century Fox has shown in developing these credible proposals. However, if we cannot agree terms at this point, then I agree with the CMA that the only effective remedy now would be to block the merger altogether. This is not my preferred approach.

We have followed a scrupulously fair and impartial process, based only on the relevant evidence and objectively justified by the facts. I would like to thank Ofcom, the CMA, the parties, my predecessor and my fantastic team at DCMS for all their hard work. I hope that we can reach a final agreement very soon. I want to see a broadcasting industry in Britain that is strong, effective and competitive, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

That concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. For someone who is not always clear on these great battles, where does this put the Comcast bid and the Fox-Disney bid? Are they now parallel bids and will Sky shareholders now decide which is the best deal? I read somewhere that Sky has advised its shareholders that it no longer stands by an earlier recommendation to accept the Fox bid. Once the procedure has been gone through, will it be a straight fight on price for Sky or are there other considerations?

I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has just said: this keeps on happening. No other country in the world would allow important parts of its media industry to be fought over by foreign interests in such a way. We have here a battle between three massive American media conglomerates over a key part of our media industry. Moreover, as the noble Lord has just said, all this is being done in the long shadow of even bigger technology companies that may be coming in. We need a framework of defences for this key sector. As we said when we considered these issues 20 years ago, we are not talking about tins of beans. When these companies pass on to different control, we are talking about an essential part of a functioning democracy. There is a case for looking at the powers of Ofcom and the CMA and the Government’s responsibilities in this media area, which are badly in need of an overhaul.

The only other thing I have to say is that it is important that we get the decision right. I am always worried when the Secretary of State gives himself timetables of 15 days, or whatever. The important thing is making sure that we get it right. I also underline the importance of Parliament being kept fully informed and consulted on decisions that are taken.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNally, for their observations on the Statement. Clearly, the terms of any divestment, which will be a requirement of the Fox bid, must be sufficient to ensure the remedy’s effectiveness over the long term. That is why reference is made in the report to a period of 10 years.

The Secretary of State has already instructed officials to begin immediate discussions with Fox and its representatives on the detail of the proposals so that work can be done to take us towards an agreement—we hope—on the final form of any undertakings. Once that is in place and the undertakings are in a form that he is prepared to accept, the Secretary of State will be required to consult on them. He must allow a minimum of 15 calendar days for responses. Of course, Parliament will be kept informed of the consequences of that process.

Regarding the points raised about other platforms and their dominance—reference was made to Google, for example—we committed to reviewing the media public interest considerations during the passage of the then Digital Economy Bill. That can now be taken forward, as is our intention.

As far as Ofcom’s powers are concerned, it is important to maintain and understand the distinction between the role of Ofcom in the phase 1 stage of an inquiry and the role of the CMA in the more intensive phase 2 stage, where the CMA has greater powers than Ofcom. However, Ofcom has indicated that it is satisfied that it has the powers it needs to conduct the form of review required under the Act in respect of a phase 1 inquiry.

The competing bids of both Comcast and Fox can be taken forward. Where that process concludes will ultimately be a matter for the shareholders of the relevant companies. In a sense, this decision leaves them on a level playing field, commercially, as far as their respective bids are concerned.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this issue reflects well on this House for inserting the media plurality public interest test into the Enterprise Act, by virtue of the Communications Act 2003. The value of that has been further demonstrated. However, to return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, when one further amends the Enterprise Act definition of “media” in “media plurality”, it is important to do so before the point at which that issue might be engaged by some proposed merger activity. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend whether the department might now make some rapid progress with its review of the meaning of “media” in the media plurality public interest test.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to my noble friend. Clearly, the department is committed to taking its consideration of these matters forward. At this stage, I am not in a position to give him a timescale, but we seek to bring the matter forward as soon as we can. If there is what is perceived by this House to be undue delay, no doubt questions will be raised.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Could my noble and learned friend illuminate for me, if not for others, the implications for the future of Sky News? I do not quite understand.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It appears that Sky News will be the subject of divestment and it appears that the intended party to acquire Sky News will be Disney. Of course, some have referred to that as the Mickey Mouse solution.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2018

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That the draft Rules laid before the House on 28 March be approved.

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

My Lords, the statutory instrument before us today updates the procedure of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission so that it reflects new bail provisions in the Immigration Act 2016, which I had the opportunity to bring before this House on behalf of the Home Office in the then Immigration Bill. It also implements measures included in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 allowing appellants to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal. Related to the second point, it also makes changes to the time limits for applying for permission to appeal to make them consistent with the High Court.

For noble Lords who are not familiar with it, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, more generally known as SIAC, is a specialist tribunal which deals with challenges to immigration and asylum decisions made by the Home Office, such as decisions to deport a person or to refuse them leave to remain. Challenges to such decisions are usually heard by the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, or the High Court. However, when a decision is made for reasons of national security or international relations, or is made relying on evidence which it would not be in the public interest to disclose, any challenge is heard instead by SIAC.

SIAC is different from other immigration tribunals in that it has the ability to operate a process known as the closed material procedure, which allows sensitive material that the Home Secretary intends to use in his response to the appeal to be protected. In the closed material procedure part of the hearings, appellants and their legal representatives are excluded from the court but are represented by special advocates. These are lawyers who have undergone strict security vetting and are of the highest integrity and ability. The system of special advocates is designed to provide a balance between the right to a fair hearing and the need to protect national security.

The first piece of legislation to which this rule amendment is designed to give effect is Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, which simplifies the previous framework with a single power of immigration bail. This allows for illegal immigrants, including foreign national offenders, who are awaiting removal to be released subject to conditions if detention is not appropriate. Financial conditions were also introduced to replace recognizances, which in this context are undertakings to pay a sum of money in the event that bail conditions are breached, in England and Wales and bail bonds in Scotland. This statutory instrument will bring the SIAC procedure rules in line with the new bail provisions in the Immigration Act 2016.

The other piece of legislation that we are concerned with is the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which, among other things, extended the concept of cases leap-frogging to the Supreme Court, extending it from just civil cases in the High Court to include cases in the Upper Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and SIAC. Leap-frogging will allow SIAC appellants to apply for a certificate which will allow them to appeal SIAC’s decision directly to the Supreme Court without first going to the Court of Appeal, provided they can demonstrate that their case raises a point of law of general public importance. Leap-frogging is not a new concept; it has been allowed for civil cases in the High Court since the Administration of Justice Act 1969. This statutory instrument will bring SIAC into line with other courts on the same level of the appellate system.

The final change brought about by this statutory instrument is to increase the time limit for making an application for permission to appeal, which will bring it into line with time limits in the High Court.

To conclude, the draft rule amendment before us today makes technical but necessary changes to the procedures used by SIAC to make sure they are consistent with measures already set out in primary legislation, namely the Immigration Act 2016 and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. We have also taken the opportunity to make time limits for permission to appeal consistent with those in the High Court. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a very clear explanation of the provisions of this statutory instrument. I note that in the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee, all of 11 minutes were spent on this matter. The Minister has provided us with somewhat more information than was provided on that occasion. Is he in a position to indicate the number of cases expected? The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to a very limited number, but is it anticipated that it will remain at a low level, or is there likely to be any growth?

Can the Minister also make some reference to the condition of the asylum centres where, presumably, some of these applicants will be held pending the outcome of their cases? Of course, great concern has been voiced about the management of some of these establishments. I confess that this issue is not directly related to the statutory instrument, but it is a matter of concern and I would be pleased if the Minister could say that the Government are looking seriously at the management of these places, whatever the outcome of the applications by the individuals involved.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. We consider that this instrument is necessary to make sure that the SIAC procedure rules are consistent with the primary legislation, as has been acknowledged. SIAC does of course perform an essential function in dealing with appeals without compromising national security.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, there have indeed been about 14 cases before SIAC in the past year. There is only one party on bail from SIAC at present, pending a determination by the commission, so the use of these powers is extremely limited and I am not aware of any indication that that will increase in the foreseeable future.

On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I am not aware of the current position on re-interview by special advocates, but I will determine what the current procedural position is and write to him on that and place a copy of the letter in the Library. On the point about the condition of centres where persons are held pending determinations by the commission, I am not in a position to comment upon any adverse management issues at present, but I will inquire of the appropriate department as to what current work, if any, is ongoing with regard to that issue. Again, I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy of that letter in the Library.

Motion agreed.

Sexual Offences Legislation

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reform sexual offences legislation.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of keeping sexual offences legislation under review. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was amended in 2015 and again in 2017. We are currently reviewing the law around upskirting and considering the wider law on non-consensual photography.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, given that Mr Harvey Proctor has launched a civil action in the High Court, revealing in his particulars of claim the full name and identity of the man “Nick” who trashed the international reputation of Sir Edward Heath and others, and in so far as the public interest provisions under court procedure rules, which deny anonymity in the Proctor action, are in conflict with anonymity provisions in sexual offences legislation, surely the cloak of lifetime anonymity should not be extended to false accusers such as “Nick”, whose full name is now plastered across the internet worldwide. This was never, never, never the intention of Parliament. Is it not about time that we reviewed the law on anonymity?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, lifetime anonymity that is extended to complainants may be removed. Indeed, those complainants who are found to have made false and misleading claims regarding sexual conduct may be subject to prosecution.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the case, highlighted on Channel 4 last night and again in the Times this morning, of a defendant who was arrested for rape in 2015, charged 18 months later, suspended from his job without pay and whose case was dropped by the CPS yesterday? Are such cases the result of a failure in the law to protect the innocent—to uphold the principle of being innocent until proven guilty—or are they a failure of the police and the CPS properly to investigate such cases? What do the Government intend to do about it?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not going to comment on the particulars of an individual case. However, police guidance is clear that the name of a suspect should not be released before they are charged. The naming of people who have been charged with a sexual offence is consistent with the principle of open justice.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to an item in today’s Times, which states:

“Google is helping its users to uncover the identity of rape victims whose anonymity is protected by law”.


What action will or could the Government take?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Again, I am not in a position to say what action the Government will take with regard to such a matter, but clearly such conduct could potentially be regarded as a contempt of court.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that when, in cases such as those of Sir Edward Heath—there would be many others such as Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini—people’s names are leaked or made public because the police are on a public fishing expedition and no charge is made, there is no formal way in which they can be acquitted? Therefore, their reputation is permanently damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We quite recognise the danger to a person’s reputation where their name is leaked prior to charge. That should not occur, as I indicated before. That does not mean that they do not have civil means of redress. The noble Lord referred to the case of Cliff Richard, who I understand has undertaken a civil course for redress in these circumstances.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Further to my noble friend’s question, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, informed the House recently that the Government have the power to establish an inquiry into Operation Conifer. Since the hopeless Wiltshire chief commissioner has made it clear that he will not take any action, will the Government now establish this inquiry so that the reputation of Sir Edward is not left in intolerable limbo?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, that would be a matter for the Home Office and not for the Ministry of Justice to consider. However, I am sure that Ministers in that department are listening.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Corston? His answer seemed rather complacent. If on Google women who have been victims of rape can be identified and help is being offered to do that, surely the Minister would want the Government to take some action and not just accept it.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Baroness, there was no complacency in my previous answer. Clearly, we will look at the facts and circumstances of any complaint and then determine what action it is appropriate to take. However, it would not be appropriate to anticipate prosecution or other action without a proper investigation of the facts. Indeed, that underlies many of the complaints made here today.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, are there any positions on which the noble and learned Lord can take some action?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Not at present.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government make the change whereby, when people are not prosecuted, the police do not say “because of insufficient evidence” but use the phrase “a lack of evidence”? There is a very important distinction.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not sure that I would necessarily draw a strict distinction between those two terms, but clearly no charge will made unless the police have an element of evidence. Where a case is not proceeded with by way of prosecution, that may be because of an absence of a sufficiency of evidence.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Further to the answer that I understood my noble and learned friend to give earlier on, will he recognise that many people who have faced such accusations have spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds dealing with lawyers and seeking representation to clear their name before any decision is taken about no further action? To suggest that they should then pursue redress implies that they have the resources to pursue that claim. For many of them, that is just not financially practicable.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of my noble friend: it may well be that some of those who are charged and indeed prosecuted and found not guilty of an offence do not have the means to take civil action in order to vindicate a complaint about the way in which they were treated.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62B proposed instead of the words left out by Commons Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 62BZA to 62BA and 62BC to 62BF in lieu of Amendment 62B.

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment 62B proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 62 but propose amendments 62BZA to 62BA to Clause (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism) inserted by Commons Amendment 109 and amendments 62BC to 62BF to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment—

--- Later in debate ---

62BF: After Schedule 16, insert the following new Schedule—
“REVIEW OF PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA FOR THE PURPOSES OF JOURNALISM
Interpretation
1 In this Schedule—
“relevant period” means—
(a) the period of 18 months beginning when the Commissioner starts the first review under section (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism), and
(b) the period of 12 months beginning when the Commissioner starts a subsequent review under that section;
“the relevant review”, in relation to a relevant period, means the review under section (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism) which the Commissioner must produce a report about by the end of that period.
Information notices
2 (1) This paragraph applies where the Commissioner gives an information notice during a relevant period.
(2) If the information notice—
(a) states that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, the information is required for the purposes of the relevant review, and
(b) gives the Commissioner’s reasons for reaching that opinion, subsections (5) and (6) of section 143 do not apply but the notice must not require the information to be provided before the end of the period of 24 hours beginning when the notice is given.
Assessment notices
3 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where the Commissioner gives an assessment notice to a person during a relevant period.
(2) If the assessment notice—
(a) states that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, it is necessary for the controller or processor to comply with a requirement in the notice for the purposes of the relevant review, and
(b) gives the Commissioner’s reasons for reaching that opinion, subsections (6) and (7) of section 146 do not apply but the notice must not require the controller or processor to comply with the requirement before the end of the period of 7 days beginning when the notice is given.
(3) During a relevant period, section 147 has effect as if for subsection (5) there were substituted—
“(5) The Commissioner may not give a controller or processor an assessment notice with respect to the processing of personal data for the special purposes unless a determination under section 174 with respect to the data or the processing has taken effect.”
Applications in respect of urgent notices
4 Section (Applications in respect of urgent notices) applies where an information notice or assessment notice contains a statement under paragraph 2(2)(a) or 3(2)(a) as it applies where such a notice contains a statement under section 143(7)(a) or 146(8)(a).”

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

Noble Lords will recall that Amendment 62B would require the establishment of an inquiry into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations. This House has debated the necessity and proportionality of such an inquiry on several occasions during the passage of the Bill. It has been an informative and sometimes impassioned debate as noble Lords from all sides of the House have brought their experiences to bear, and the Government have been listening throughout.

The last time that we debated this topic, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about the past. Before I get into the substance of my speech, I think I can offer some reassurance on that point. When the Information Commissioner undertakes the review described in Commons Amendment 108, she will be reviewing the extent to which the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism complied with data protection law in the next four years; as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, we must look forward, not back. Her hands are not tied, though, and the commissioner’s existing enforcement powers are not time-limited. Indeed, compliance with the new law and compliance with the old law are deeply intertwined. That is why the Commons sent us 20 pages of amendments on transitional provision.

Most of what we have heard about relates to wrongs in the past that were illegal. If at some future date new evidence came to light that showed that the press were acting in breach of the law, the Government would expect the relevant enforcement bodies, including the Information Commissioner’s Office, to investigate and possible sanctions to follow. The Government are clear that what was illegal then remains illegal now.

There is no lacuna and no amnesty. Anyone who thinks that that is what the Government are proposing is quite wrong. What we are doing, however, is providing the institutions we need for the challenges of the future. 

We have given the Bill a thorough examination. My noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde has reminded us several times of the number of amendments that have been secured, not just on media regulation but on issues that impact on everyone. This is a good Bill, but we have now, I suggest, run out of road. The question now is whether the Bill is good enough to justify passing it into law.

To assess that requires two things. First, it requires knowledge of the Government’s proposed way forward on the issues we asked the other place to reconsider last week. Secondly, it requires knowledge of what would happen if this House did not pass the Bill which is before it today.

On the first point, I have already mentioned the Information Commissioner’s review of compliance with data protection law. Since we last debated the merits of having a review, the Government have further proposed that that should not be a one-off event but a recurring fixture. We have also given her additional powers to make sure that her review is as comprehensive and robust as it can be.

Between now and then, the commissioner will produce guidance for data subjects seeking redress and a code of practice for those who process data for the purposes of journalism. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will report on the availability and effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution procedures, including IPSO’s new mandatory low-cost arbitration scheme, and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will report on police forces’ adherence to its guidance on how to interact with the media.

I am confident that, when these amendments are viewed alongside the improvements IPSO has already made to its processes and procedure, this country now has the most robust system of redress for press intrusion it has ever had, and it has achieved it without resorting to state regulation.

But noble Lords know all this already, especially if they, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, watched last Wednesday’s debate in the other place. So I want to spend my remaining time on the subject of not media regulation but data protection.

The GDPR will take effect in the United Kingdom at midnight on Friday. It will do so irrespective of whether or not we are prepared for it. If we do not pass implementing legislation in the next three days, medical research will grind to a halt. The administration of justice will stutter as chambers attempt to work out whether it is preferable to breach court disclosure rules or data protection law. Sectoral regulators will have to tip off the people they are investigating. It will potentially be chaotic, and this House will be held responsible.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said it well at Second Reading, when he welcomed the Bill:

“It provides the technical underpinnings that will allow the GDPR to operate in the UK both before and after Brexit … it is an enabling piece of legislation, together with the GDPR, which is absolutely necessary to allow the UK to continue to exchange data, whether it is done by businesses for commercial purposes or by law enforcement or for other reasons, once we are considered to be a third-party nation rather than a member of the European Union”.—[Official Report, 10/10/17; col. 205.]


The damage done by not passing this Bill today would be irreversible, and the only winner would be data protection lawyers.

As is quite proper, the House has asked the elected Chamber to think again about the detail of this Bill. It did so, and it has returned it to us as a Bill that is now ready to go to Her Majesty for signature. Two votes in the House of Commons in the past two weeks have come to the same conclusion. If we further delay this essential legislation, that decision will be on us.

Is this Bill good enough to pass? We are convinced that it is, and I therefore beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to me making blood-curdling threats. I made no threats—blood curdling or otherwise—and what I did say was essentially true.

This Bill is about data protection. The primary concern of your Lordships’ House, which we have debated over recent months, is whether individuals have the ability to defend themselves against excessive press intrusion, and the Bill now provides a number of mechanisms to address this concern. These are all designed to maintain the freedom of the press and the independence of self-regulation, albeit in compliance with the law. For example, it was announced three weeks ago that IPSO will introduce a low-cost mandatory arbitration scheme. We are determined that there will be no backsliding on that kind of commitment, and Commons Amendment 62BC is designed to ensure that the use of such schemes is reported on—a point to which I will return in a moment—to reduce any temptation there might be to turn away from them once the heat of the Bill is off.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, sought, with vim and vigour, to address two points. I was slightly taken aback because, a few minutes before we began this debate, I had endeavoured to explain to him the operation of Clause 174(3)(b) and its interrelationship with Clause 144, and thought I had done so quite well. However, clearly I failed to some extent in that regard. I had also sought to give him further assurances about the role of the Secretary of State.

On the first point—the operation of the Information Commissioner’s powers—as I had sought to explain to the noble and learned Lord, under his amendment the Information Commissioner would have had access to prepublication material gathered for journalistic purposes. It was acknowledged across the House, and by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, during earlier debates that that could not be tolerated given the intrusion it would involve upon press freedom and journalistic preparation. The interrelationship between Clauses 174 and 144 is complex, but I again make it clear that the effect is that the commissioner will not be able to access prepublication journalistic material but will be able to access material that has been processed for the purposes of journalism.

On the second point, about the power of the Secretary of State, one has to be clear that this is not actually a power but simply a duty to report. It is for the Secretary of State to report, and he could do so even without an express statutory power, but this is to underline it. We are making it a clear duty, to import transparency into the process. He will essentially be reporting on the metrics available with regard to the take-up of alternative dispute resolution. The effectiveness of dispute resolution will be determined by reference to its take-up and its resolution. It will then be for us—Parliament and the people—to determine in light of those facts whether we consider that further steps have to be taken.

Let us be absolutely clear: the Bill imports no power on the part of the Secretary of State to compel the media to act in any way on the report that he is putting in place. This is simply a mechanism by which he can ensure that the relevant facts and figures—if I can put it that way—are laid before Parliament at the appropriate time. I hope that I have been able to put both those reassurances with greater clarity than I did a few minutes earlier, and to reassure the noble and learned Lord on those points.

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the observations he has made, and I hope again that he is reassured by the position the Government have now adopted regarding the intent and consequences of the amendments from the House of Commons. As regards the observations from other noble Lords around the House, I recognise that there has been widespread concern about the way in which we have been able to address the past and the need to address the future, having regard to the fundamental requirement for freedom of the press—one of the foundations that underpins our democratic process. Before closing, I acknowledge the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to this entire debate. I quite understand why she has maintained the need to bring these matters before the House on a number of occasions, and I do not seek to imply any criticism of her in that regard.

We have reached a point where the Bill should pass, however. It has to, really. It is in those circumstances that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment to Motion A.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, when I studied the British constitution 50 years ago I read the books by Sir Ivor Jennings, who said that one of the only weapons that an Opposition have against a Government is time, and that an Opposition—and, indeed, critics on a Government’s own Benches—are perfectly entitled to use time to put pressure on Governments. My goodness, we have had a cascade of useful changes because we have used time to press the Government further on the issue.

As I said before, the line between the Daily Mail and the MailOnline is increasingly blurred. This legislation will be tested against that blurred background. At some stage, the old print media may regret not being in the comfortable protection of a royal charter, as my learned friends listening to this debate must think that there is a lot of work ahead for them as this Bill is tested.

We never wanted to stop the Bill coming into law, and I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

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

[Lord Woolf]

There is an answer to the problem that the noble and learned Lord raises. It might have implications for the workload of the judiciary but I think that could be handled. We should get away from the idea that a judge should assess damages in appropriate cases only at one stage. There is no reason why you cannot have a system where the matter can be restored to a judge in a case of differences of opinion to take into account succeeding circumstances. If the power existed, the courts would find that in the majority of cases, litigants—properly advised, as they are in these big cases—would come back only when there was a real difficulty between the insurer in practice and the claimant. In that way, matters could be reviewed to reflect any differing circumstances. It was not a one-off assessment that I was advocating but the ability to change the assessment. That would apply to PPOs as it would to any other laws.

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

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for setting out the background to this matter. His Amendment 55 would require what he referred to as new rules of court to be made that highlight features of periodical payment orders which may make them a more appropriate way for a person with a long-term injury to receive an award for damages for future care costs. I understand that Amendment 55 and the other amendments in this group are essentially probing amendments.

“Rules of court” in Amendment 55 means the Civil Procedure Rules. The purpose of the Civil Procedure Rules—and, indeed, all rules of court—is to govern the practice and procedure of the court and the parties in court proceedings. This may be a technical issue but that does not detract from the importance of ensuring that claimants who have suffered long-term serious injuries are well informed as to the implications of their choice between a lump sum payment of damages and a PPO. I am conscious of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about the care that the Executive must always exercise in circumstances where it may be perceived that they are giving directions to the judiciary. I will explain why the Government therefore take a more modest approach to this issue but one which they feel will be effective.

Of course, some Civil Procedure Rules have been made in relation to the exercise by the court of its powers under Section 2(1) of the Damages Act 1996 to order that all or part of an award of damages in respect of personal injury is to take the form of a periodical payment order. These rules already require the court to consider all the circumstances of the case, as well as the preferences of the claimant and defendant and the reasons for them. I appreciate that there are instances in which PPOs may not be available; for example, a mutual insurer such as the Medical Defence Union would not be considered sufficiently well reserved to meet future liabilities. I appreciate also that there have been reservations among insurers about the use of PPOs because of the way in which they are required to reserve for them and the capital requirements related to that.

PPOs are certainly in principle considered a better form of taking compensation for future loss than a lump sum because they provide strong protection for claimants who may be concerned about the return on a lump sum. This Government certainly support their use. At the same time, we must keep in mind that the person behind a claim has a choice and is entitled to make one in such circumstances. We consider it important that claimants making a choice in these circumstances should be properly informed, irrespective of whether their particular case reaches such a stage that the court has to consider whether to order a PPO. Of course, not every case will reach the court; many will be settled before that and, at an earlier stage, claimants have to be properly informed as to which option they should adopt.

I note the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, with which I entirely agree. It is perhaps moot to say that no estimate of life expectancy is ever precisely accurate because they are just that—estimates—and one takes that out of the equation where you have a PPO.

The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that appropriate advice is available to claimants in all cases and stand by the commitments they made to action in their response to the Justice Select Committee. To pick up on the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the point made in paragraph 50 of the response to the JSC was a concern to ensure that guidance was provided to individual claimants. It is our intention to put in place appropriate guidance and to ensure that it is available. We aim to do that by the end of 2018. In addition, we are investigating whether current advice received by claimants on the respective benefits of lump sums and PPOs is effective, and whether there are other ways in which the use of PPOs could be increased within the present system. At present, we intend to complete this work by the summer of 2019.

I hope that goes some way to meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on these matters. He raised a further question on indexing and I think the noble Lord, Lord Monks, touched on this. The reason that the ASHE 6115 index is taken is that it is the specific care costs index. It may be that wage costs have not increased at the same rate as the wider RPI, which may explain the discrepancy the noble Earl pointed out. However, the ASHE 6115 index is a specific care costs index, which is why that has been employed in the past.

Amendment 92 would require the Lord Chancellor to conduct a review of the impact of setting a new discount rate on the extent to which PPOs are made by the courts, but within six months of the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill coming into force, and then to publish a report of the results within 18 months of commencement. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, hinted, that may be far too tight a timescale to produce an effective report. We certainly do not consider that a requirement to carry out a review of this nature at the time proposed would be particularly informative. That is because the first review of the rate under the Bill would probably not have been completed by the time at which completing the review under this amendment would be required. Effectively, that would mean that the review would have to focus on any impact that had resulted from the setting of the rate as of March 2017 under the present law, which was a rate of minus 0.75%. I suppose that such a review may, however, be of limited use given that the legal framework for setting the rate would have changed but I suspect that it would tell us only something about the past, not the future.

I also observe that the settlement of major cases can take some years to agree, whether or not they arrive at the door of the court, so it might be some time before there is sufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions about changes in claimant behaviour. We do not yet have the statistical information about the effect of the March 2017 change in the discount rate on the use of PPOs. We therefore do not know whether the lowering of the rate has diminished the take-up of PPOs, although there is certainly some anecdotal evidence to that effect. It is logical to assume that this would occur, given the size of the change that took place in March 2017.

The evidence from the previous four years does, however, suggest that the use of PPOs is concentrated in the most serious and long-term cases, with the propensity to use them increasing with the size of awards up to about £5 million. They are not really employed in cases where the award of damages is lower than £1 million. That is largely because the use of PPOs is concentrated on provision for future care costs—long-term care costs, generally in cases of catastrophic injury. That is why there is a large percentage of cases in which PPOs are not considered appropriate. The National Health Service pays out PPOs in about 70% of awards over £1 million, while the equivalent figure for insurers is only about 36%, and there may be further work to be done. That is why we are going to look at the question of further guidance in order to encourage their use. Certainly, the take-up is far from negligible in serious cases.

On the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, this is not just about funding clinical negligence claims by the NHS. It goes far deeper than that; it is about ensuring fairness between claimants and defendants in the difficult process of assessing damages, particularly damages awarded for future care. I do not accept the noble Lord’s general point that we are simply trying to move the cost of future care from victims to somewhere else. That is not what we are about; this is concerned with ensuring fairness between claimants and defendants.

I have spoken about the way in which the amendments would require some sort of review. Amendment 92A would also require such a review to assess whether the fact that a PPO may be uprated by reference to an inflation index other than the retail prices index is having an impact on the relative merits of PPOs versus lump sums in the context of a revised discount rate. That would go beyond a consideration of the impact of the discount rate to the overall level of damages award, and how individual elements may be indexed for inflation. At present, the index used for PPOs is a very specific care cost index rather than the RPI.

We will, as I have indicated, be taking forward a range of initiatives to encourage the use of PPOs and to ensure that claimants are properly advised when choosing the form of their award. We hope to have the first part of that process completed by the end of 2018 and the wider investigation completed by the summer of 2019. We believe that those practical steps will encourage the use of PPOs where appropriate—we will, of course, monitor that—and create a situation in which a review requirement, such as that envisaged by the amendments, will not be necessary. Indeed, it would be more appropriate to move in this direction rather than find ourselves in the somewhat invidious position of the Executive sending out directions to the judiciary about how it should approach the award and determination of damages in such serious cases.

With that explanation of the Government’s position, I hope the Committee will be reassured that we are committed to effective action to encourage the use of PPOs. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Before my noble and learned friend sits down, I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to have suggested that a PPO could be reviewed as the instalments were going ahead. That would be something of an innovation but it might be worth considering. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend has that in mind.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We do not have that in mind. One of the concerns about such a proposal is the impact it would have on the insurers and their inclination to embrace PPOs. At present they are concerned about their reserving liability and their capital requirement on the basis of risk when it comes to a PPO. If we were to add to that equation the possibility of the PPO being revived at some indeterminate point in the future, I believe it would have a counteractive effect on the employment of PPOs by insurers. I have noted what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said; I will take it away and consider it further, but my initial reaction is that it could act as a disincentive for the operation of PPOs.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extensive reply and other noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.

I take issue with my noble and learned friend on two matters. First, it is perfectly possible for us to deal with the question of PPOs for mutuals by setting up a proper reinsurance programme. That could be done quite easily. Therefore, to say that we would like to do this but we cannot because mutuals cannot provide it is inaccurate. We can sort that out with a certain amount of technical help.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said that we were engaged in a nudge. Personally, I am engaged in a bit of a shove, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, will join us in in that shove. I am not sure that my noble and learned friend has given a shove; I think it is a very delicate pressure on the arm of the industry, which I am not sure will be effective.

We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about how PPOs are declining in use and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about the culture and question of fairness, which must be at the heart of all our discussions. I was encouraged to think that such an eminent jurist as him should think that the rules of court could provide the flexibility to enable the issues covered by my amendment to be incorporated. We are in an era where things are moving fast, and we do not want to find ourselves stuck in inflexibility.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern referred to the question of interference by the Executive with the judiciary. I made clear that I was concerned about that in my opening remarks. The amendment is designed so that Parliament, the legislature, makes its view clear. It is nothing to do with the Executive. It is giving judges a steer, but after that, it is over to them how they proceed. My worry about my noble and learned friend’s comments is that the best remains the enemy of the good. We have a system that is not working very well, but we are saying, “This is frightfully difficult, so we should not change it; we are likely to cause more trouble by changing it than we solve, let sleeping dogs lie”.

The system is not working very well. The transfer of investment and longevity risk away from the individual has to be a key part of making matters fair. It deals with important and difficult cases of the sort raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet some of us between now and the Bill’s next stage, because I do not think we have got to the bottom of this. We are missing an opportunity to do something seriously helpful for people who suffer long-term, life-changing injuries. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

In response to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, and a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I would be perfectly content to meet them before the Bill’s next stage to discuss this. If they contact my private office, that can be arranged.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I simply wish to confirm that we on this side agree with what noble Lords have suggested, so the quicker we can get things moving, the better for everyone.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I believe that we are as one in our desire to see these provisions brought into force as rapidly and as sensibly as possible, and all of these amendments stem from the entirely reasonable, and indeed strongly argued, wish for the review to be carried out in order to minimise the impact that the present discount rate is having—disproportionately, one would venture—on defendants and in particular on NHS Resolution.

As I explained in writing to noble Lords following Second Reading, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred, the Government remain fully committed to beginning the first review of the rate promptly after Royal Assent and to completing that first review as soon as is practicable in 2019. To that end, I indicated that although the expert panel cannot be appointed before the power to do so has been created, preparatory work on the setting up of the panel is already under way and the Government will progress the appointment process as far as they properly can before Royal Assent. I hope that that goes some way to meeting the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. As part of that preparatory work, the Government intend to publish the draft terms of reference for the expert panel in time for the Report stage of the Bill in this House. However, the appointment of the expert panel cannot take place until after Royal Assent and thus the completion of the appointment process cannot be predicted with absolute certainty.

The effect of Amendment 58 and its related Amendments 63 and 66 might be to force the Lord Chancellor to delay commencement or risk the time to conduct the review being eaten into, thereby reducing its effectiveness. We have in mind the stages that have to be gone through. Amendment 59 would reduce the period of time within which the first review of the discount rate must be started following commencement from within 90 days of commencement to 10 days of commencement, and other amendments specifying 30 days have been referred to as well.

What I would emphasise is the word “within”. These are outliers, but we are determined to carry out the process as swiftly as we reasonably can. Having regard to that, however, we have to make provision for any uncertainties that may emerge, and therefore to fix too stringent a period might impact adversely upon the whole process that we want to carry out. In other words, while it is important to move quickly, it is also important to ensure that any review is completed fully and properly and is not going to be the subject of untoward challenge.

As I have said, the appointment of the expert panel to advise the Lord Chancellor simply cannot take place until after Royal Assent and even then it may still take a little time, despite the preparations that are ongoing even now. If the review starts without the panel being ready to start work, the whole task is going to be thrown into some difficulty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I want to say just one thing about the nature of the Lord Chancellor’s judgment in this case. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said that the Lord Chancellor is acting on behalf of the Government, but that is not the nature of the decision: it is the Lord Chancellor’s decision as representing the Lord Chancellor himself. He has the responsibility of a personal decision in this matter, in the way this Bill is drafted. Certainly, when I had responsibility for these matters, it never occurred to me that I should consult the Cabinet about it.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The Bill makes perfectly clear that this is a decision of the Lord Chancellor as Lord Chancellor, and it is in that context that it has to be seen and understood.

Amendment 61 would replace the proposed three-year maximum review cycle for the second and subsequent reviews of the rate with a system under which the need for the rate to be reviewed would be determined by the expert panel by reference to changes in returns on investment. Of course, there are then consequential and supplementary amendments. The effect would be to add a new and distinct responsibility to the role of the panel. It would in effect, as I believe my noble friend Lord Hodgson acknowledged, require a standing panel to be created. If more than a year had passed since the rate was reviewed, the expert panel would be required to assess the need for a review and then to advise the Lord Chancellor to review the rate if it considered that the nature of return on investment had changed enough to justify a review. If the panel decided that this condition had not been satisfied, it would have to report its reasons for this view to the Lord Chancellor.

The concept of a review based on changes in investment returns was canvassed as an alternative to a fixed review period in the Government’s 2017 consultation on how the rate should be set, and it was supported, let me be clear. However, basing the review requirement on changes in investment returns would, we believe, create more uncertainty and be less predictable than a regular fixed-date review. The introduction of a requirement for the panel to consider the need for a full review annually could further fuel such uncertainty.

I appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Lord and others at Second Reading about the potential for a fixed review period to prompt undesirable litigation behaviour and the possibility of what is sometimes termed the gaming of the system in anticipation of a change to the rate. However, this problem would not be avoided by the system which the amendment proposes. Litigants would still know when the panel would be required to consider whether the rate required reviewing. Indeed, such occasions would be more frequent under the amendment than under the three-year cycle proposed in the Bill. One can imagine a stop-start mentality emerging leading up to the time when the panel was expected to report.

A further consequence of the amendment would be that the expert panel would have, in practice, to exist independently of the review of the rate, rather than being convened by the Lord Chancellor for each review, as the Bill currently provides. In effect, a standing panel would be required, which would have to exercise judgment as to the timing of reviews, rather than confining itself to the technical matter of advising the Lord Chancellor on the factors that might be considered in the setting of the rate, which is the purpose of the expert panel. The amendment would therefore make a very significant change to the proposals in the Bill regarding when the rate should be changed. The Government’s proposals for a fixed-period maximum cycle for the review of the rate have, as I say, been developed through consultation and been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, and we consider that they provide a simple and certain method by which reviews can largely be predicted.

Amendment 74 would require the Lord Chancellor to adopt any recommendation from the expert panel as to whether the rate should be changed and, if so, what the rate should be. Clearly, such a change would diminish significantly the responsibility and accountability of the Lord Chancellor for any review outcome—indeed, it would essentially remove it. Amendment 74 would also remove the requirements on the Lord Chancellor, the panel and the Treasury set out in paragraph 2(6) and (7) of new Schedule A1 to comply with or to take into account the duties of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the setting of the rate that are set out in paragraph 3 of new Schedule A1. What we would have is the elevation of the panel from an advisory role to essentially an executive role. That would be a major change and clearly greatly alter and increase the role of the panel.

The creation of the expert panel to advise the Lord Chancellor is, of course, one of the most important changes introduced by Clause 8. The panel is central to the Government’s proposals for the way in which the rate is set, introducing new expertise and transparency. The panel will play a very important role in providing assistance to the Lord Chancellor in setting the rate, but it would not in our view be appropriate for the panel’s recommendations to bind the Lord Chancellor in deciding whether the rate should change and what it should be. The setting of the discount rate requires the weighing of different potential outcomes for individuals in relation to a range of possible rates. An element of value judgment will ultimately be required. It is important, therefore, that the decision-maker should be politically and publicly accountable for decisions on the rate. That is why the Lord Chancellor is, in our view, the appropriate person to make that choice. Indeed, this was recognised by the Justice Select Committee, which stated in its report that:

“Setting the discount rate has repercussions on the taxpayer through Government expenditure and also consumers through its impact on insurance premiums and inflation; therefore we think it is right that the decision to set the discount rate lies with the Lord Chancellor”.


We agree with that assessment.

In addition to being influenced by the pre-legislative scrutiny carried out by the Justice Committee, the proposals we have put forward have been developed through the public consultation process. In response to the question of by whom the rate should be set, the largest single group of support was for the rate to be set by the Lord Chancellor following advice from an expert panel. I note the support for that which has been given, in particular, by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, expressing his experience as Lord Chancellor and underlining the distinct role of the Lord Chancellor in this context.

[Lord Sharkey]

The Minister talks about the consultation and the preferences expressed there. As I think I mentioned at Second Reading, there was no majority in favour of the Lord Chancellor being involved. There was a majority for other methods, not the Lord Chancellor.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I acknowledge that. As I said, the greatest number of responses were in support of that particular proposal. I reiterate that.

I understand that Amendment 74 is a probing amendment but it would at a stroke remove many of the benefits that the proposed reforms in the Bill are seeking to achieve. This is because paragraph 3 of the new schedule governs how the Lord Chancellor is to decide what the rate should be, and Amendment 74 would remove paragraph 3 from the schedule. The essential change made by paragraph 3 to the present law is that in future the rate is to be assessed on returns reasonably expected to be achievable from a diversified low-risk portfolio of investments. This has regard to how claimants actually invest and the returns available to them. This evidence-based process of assessment will replace the hypothetical approach of the present law, which leads to the rate being set largely by reference only to returns from UK index-linked gilts.

Our evidence is clear that claimants simply do not invest all their awards in UK index-linked gilts; in other words, claimants do not pay Her Majesty’s Government to look after their money. Our research indicates that setting the rate on this basis leads to awards of compensation that are expected to produce on average around 135% of the funds anticipated to be necessary to meet the claimant’s losses, although this drops to 120% to 125% after taxation and the costs associated with the management of investments have been accounted for—a point that I will return to in a moment. The new system will put the setting of the rate on a far more realistic basis and bring the average closer to the target of 100%. This will be fairer for both claimants and defendants.

In support of this process, the paragraph sets out a number of key assumptions that the Lord Chancellor must adopt in deciding what the rate should be and a number of supporting factors he or she must take into account. It also enables the Lord Chancellor to identify and apply further assumptions and to take into account further factors in determining what the rate should be. Amendment 74 would remove the entire framework provided by the Bill for the basis of the setting of the rate. The effect would be that, unless the Supreme Court were to decide to adopt a different basis for the setting of the rate in a future case, the rate would continue to be set on the basis of the present case law, principally the 1998 decision of the House of Lords in Wells v Wells, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, at Second Reading; it is a case on which I believe he sat. This would remove the central aim of the reforms to provide a fairer, more certain and more sustainable system for both claimants and defendants, and would remove any possibility of overcompensation and its impact on the National Health Service.

Clearly, we want seriously injured individuals to be fully compensated for all the losses caused by their injury. They should receive the full and fair compensation that is legally due to them. We do not seek to change the overriding objective of 100% compensation. The problem is that at present the rate has to be set largely by reference to UK index-linked gilts. But our evidence is that this is not how such claimants actually invest and therefore we have to move on.

I add that it might be a little odd to adopt the noble Lord’s Amendment 74 in light of his Amendment 71, which encourages us to have the Lord Chancellor fix the first rate without recourse to the panel at all. There seems to be a slight tension between the two amendments. I have expressed my view on Amendment 71, and we are going to look at that again, but I do not find it easily reconcilable with Amendment 74, albeit I acknowledge that it is a probing amendment.

[Lord Sharkey]

I simply observe that I do not think lawyers have an exclusive right to exercise and run conflicting arguments.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Generally speaking, they are alternative arguments.

Amendment 77 would add an obligation on the Lord Chancellor to take into account the response of the expert panel in determining what the rate should be. Of course, that is exactly what the Lord Chancellor will do. Indeed, why would the legislation require the Lord Chancellor to consult the panel and require the panel to respond if the Lord Chancellor was not required to consider the panel’s response? Of course, there may sometimes be merit in stating every detail of a process in primary legislation but I suggest that it is not necessary in this case.

Amendments 82A, 85A, and 90A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, relate to the procedures and responsibilities governing the operation of the panel. Clearly, the expert panel has an important advisory role but it is not appropriate or desirable to load it with the additional responsibilities suggested in the amendments. Paragraph 2(7) of new Schedule A1 already requires the panel to take into account the duties of the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 requires the Lord Chancellor to give reasons for his or her decision and to publish information about the response of the panel. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, observed, ultimately the Lord Chancellor’s decision on the matter, as it is disclosed, will be amenable to judicial review. It is not a case of the Lord Chancellor receiving the expert panel’s views and simply ignoring them. Clearly, such a perverse course of action, which one would not anticipate, would leave his decision-making power amenable to review.

The obligations are expanded by the commitments that we gave to the Justice Select Committee to consult the panel about the allowances to be made for taxation, investment management charges and inflation in the setting of the rate and, over and above that, to publish the panel’s report to the Lord Chancellor at each review. It is not a case just of disclosing what the panel’s advice may have been but of undertaking to publish the panel’s report and then to give reasons for the decision that the Lord Chancellor has made.

As I touch upon that, I recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised the question of the experts on the panel. I will come on to the question of a medical expert in a moment but I note that with regard to the position of someone concerned with consumer investments, one would be interested there in the context of someone who acted as a financial adviser to those who made investments as consumers at various levels. That, I understand, is what is contemplated at that point.

As I have sought to underline, the overall thrust of the amendments is that the panel should, in effect, carry out a pre-review of the rate. This is not the intended role of the panel. The panel’s role is advisory. It will be consulted by the Lord Chancellor and it will provide the Lord Chancellor with its views. The report of the panel and the Lord Chancellor’s decision and his reasons for the decision will be published. But the role of the expert panel is not to take away from the role of the Lord Chancellor. It is not the role of the panel to make a decision on what the rate should be. Its role is to provide expert support to the Lord Chancellor.

At the end of the day it is the Lord Chancellor who will make the necessary determination and will be publicly answerable for the determination he makes. Therefore, we consider that the decision must be for the Lord Chancellor, who will take that decision in his role as Lord Chancellor and be legally and politically accountable for it. The process of the setting of the rate is going to be transparent. The panel has been created for a very important purpose—namely, to bring new expertise to the process of setting the rate—but it is not its role to second-guess the outcome of the final review by the Lord Chancellor.

Amendment 84 would require the Lord Chancellor to base the allowances to be made for taxation, inflation and investment management costs on recommendations from the expert panel. The Lord Chancellor is already required by paragraph 3(5) of new Schedule A1 to make appropriate allowances for each of these three items. This will be an evidence-based exercise requiring judgment as to what the standard allowance should be against the range of possible individual circumstances that might be foreseen. The expert panel forms an integral part of the Government’s proposals. It will introduce additional expertise but, at the end of the day, the final decision must be for the Lord Chancellor. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would in my submission take the role of the panel way beyond that of an expert consultative role.

I turn to Amendment 87, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and would extend the membership of the expert panel to include a medical representative. Here I concur with the view already expressed by my noble friend Lord Faulks. On one view, the effect of this amendment would be to broaden the general expertise within the panel, but I should explain that its role is intended to focus purely on matters relating to financial rates of return, in order to provide advice to the Lord Chancellor. The Bill therefore provides for the panel to be chaired by the Government Actuary and that the other members should have experience as an actuary, a manager of investments, an economist and, as I indicated earlier, in consumer matters relating to investment—for example, as a financial adviser.

The Government consider that this range of expertise is the most relevant for providing advice on what the relevant investments and rates of return are likely to be, and will be the most useful source in formulating advice for the Lord Chancellor. While medical expertise is relevant when determining a lump-sum amount of compensation to which the discount rate is to be applied, or in estimating the life expectancy of a claimant, these are separate issues to the setting of the discount rate and would be outside the remit of the panel, as an expert panel advising the Lord Chancellor. We do not see that a medical expert would contribute to the process of the expert panel.

I turn next to Amendment 88, which was also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and would require the Lord Chancellor to use the power to appoint the four appointed panel members to secure that each of those members approaches the work of the panel as an expert with the object of recommending a rate of return that is fair to the interests of both claimants and defendants. The appointed panel members are indeed intended to be experts in their fields. The expertise that they will bring to the process of setting the rate is one of the most significant reforms introduced by the Bill. The Government made it clear in their response to the Justice Select Committee that they intend to recruit experts who will act as independent experts in providing their advice, not as representatives of specific interest groups. This is not a representative panel; it is, I emphasise, an expert panel.

The appointed panel members will be required to disclose potential conflicts of interest and, under paragraph 3(2) of new Schedule A1, to take account of the duties imposed on the Lord Chancellor as to how the rate is to be set in deciding what response to give to the Lord Chancellor’s consultation. The mix of expertise stated in the Bill strikes, we suggest, a correct and fair balance between the various areas of knowledge that would be required. The proposed additional requirements on the Lord Chancellor in Amendment 88 are therefore unnecessary.

This amendment, however, also seeks to indicate what the objective of the work of each of the appointed panel members should be. The panel as a whole will play a very important role in providing advice, as I say, to assist the Lord Chancellor in setting the rate. It is very important that this advice is fair, which is why the Bill sets out the range of expertise referred to. However, the role and objective of the panel is to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters relevant to the setting of the rate by the Lord Chancellor. The role of the individual appointed members will be framed accordingly. We consider that the requirements on the Lord Chancellor under the terms of the legal framework for the setting of the rate, coupled with the advice from the panel of experts, who will bring a balanced range of expertise, and the requirements in the Bill which provide that the Lord Chancellor will give reasons for his or her decision, underline the way in which the decision-making process will be accountable and transparent. It will also have the objective of being impartial.

Amendment 91, which I believe was spoken to by my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Hunt, who is still with us, would remove the provisions in paragraph 8 of new Schedule A1, which interpret provisions in relation to the setting of the discount rate to cover the possibility of the Lord Chancellor deciding on the occasion of a review to set no rate or no rate for particular classes of case, on the one hand, and changes from that situation, on the other. In fact, that new paragraph would reproduce the provisions in the Damages Act 1996 which indicate that the court must take into account such rate of return—if any—as may from time to time be prescribed by an order made by the Lord Chancellor. This wording implies that the Lord Chancellor might decide to set no rate under the present law. The provisions in paragraph 8(2) to (4) are intended to clarify how this power would operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I will briefly support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, in what she just said. It is easy for us to overlook what quantitative easing has done to the returns on savings and fixed interest. It has been a much longer-running saga than was anticipated, and it is still carrying on. If we are to set up a system that precludes people investing in equities, which gives some protection against that, we will be doing no service to the people who need this money as part of the way to recover from terrible injuries they received. The last line on page 9,

“who has different financial aims”,

does not add anything at all to the situation and will merely provide fuel and funds for lawyers to discuss exactly what that means in cases in future years.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, began by referring to the briefing from APIL—the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. I am familiar with it, and indeed, the association invited me to speak at its annual conference, where I confirmed that we would take the Bill through Parliament. I have not cleared my diary for next year. Much of what they had to say, which was repeated by the noble Lord, was, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, met by the need to encourage the uptake of periodical payment orders. We are committed to that and we will take it forward in various ways. They need to be embraced more thoroughly, not only by claimants but by defendants —insurers—as well. Nevertheless, I make that point.

The noble Lord referred to the case of Wells v Wells, which has been mentioned before. There we saw the reference to what was essentially construed as “very low risk investment in UK gilts”, and we are moving away from that. However, there is an additional element in that, which is volatility: you have an investment portfolio which may be subject to volatility, and you may find that it is at a low point at a stage when you need to withdraw capital funds. That has to be factored in as well, and we appreciate all that.

On the suggestion that we are somehow inviting people to invest their savings, or a majority of them, in hedge funds, that will not do at all. The portfolio A that was examined included 13% UK equities, 15% overseas equities, and 18% of alternative investments which could be modelled as hedge funds. We have to see all this in context. We took clear evidence on the nature of a low-risk portfolio, and there was reference, for example, to widows and orphans, but we are in a different climate in this context. We are not seeking to move away from the idea of 100% compensation. I will come on to the probing amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on setting the rate by reference to not only a floor but, I suggest, a ceiling—there are reasons for that—and the question of investment objectives, as distinct from different financial aims.

Amendment 78 seeks to amend paragraph 3(2) of new Schedule A1 by removing the words,

“in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor”,

from the requirement that the Lord Chancellor must decide the rate on the basis that,

“the rate of return should be the rate that, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, a recipient of relevant damages could reasonably be expected to achieve”,

if he invested the relevant damages for the purpose of the assumed objectives. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent the Lord Chancellor seeking to justify a rate on the basis that it seems perfectly reasonable in his subjective opinion when, by any objective assessment, the rate proposed is not supportable.

The noble Lord referred to an “unfettered discretion” and conflict with a political interest, but we are talking about the Lord Chancellor making the decision in his capacity as Lord Chancellor. He does not have an unfettered discretion. He is subject to public law duties in the exercise of his functions. Any decision of the Lord Chancellor as to what the rate should be must be rational, and any failure in rationality can be challenged by way of judicial review. I have already touched upon that and the question of disclosure, and I shall not repeat it.

It is necessary to have reference to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor in relation to setting the rate because the setting of the discount rate is not now, and will not under the proposed legislation, be a precise science—it cannot be. The decision to be made on the rate will require the weighing of different potential outcomes for individuals in relation to a range of possible rates. An inevitable degree of subjective assessment is involved in this process. That is why it is appropriate that, although there is an expert panel, that subjective assessment is made by the Lord Chancellor, albeit with the reasons being given and explained, with a rational analysis of the information submitted to him.

Amendment 78A would require the Lord Chancellor to assume, when considering the damages to which the discount rate would apply, that the relevant damages would be payable as a lump sum or partly as a lump sum. The current wording of the Bill requires the Lord Chancellor to assume that the relevant damages will be payable wholly as a lump sum. We do not consider that this amendment is necessary. The discount rate will only ever be applicable to damages payable as a lump sum, and in setting the rate the Lord Chancellor will have regard to that.

Amendment 79 would include the requirement to assume, among the assumptions which the Lord Chancellor must make under paragraph 3(3) of new Schedule A1 in determining the discount rate, that the cost to the claimant of investment advice shall not be recoverable by way of damages. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulks about the need to be clear about how investment management costs are to be treated in setting the rate, but we do not consider that this amendment is necessary.

Paragraph 3(5) of the schedule provides for the Lord Chancellor to make such allowance for “investment management costs” as he thinks appropriate. This provision has been included on the basis that under the current law the cost of investment advice is not, for the reasons explained by my noble friend Lord Faulks, recoverable as a head of damages and therefore needs to be taken into account as a factor in setting the discount rate. Should the law change, an allowance in the setting of the discount rate would then become unnecessary, as the claimant would already have the benefit of the compensation for the costs. However, we understand that paragraph 3(5) reflects the current law and can adapt to changes in the law. Therefore, we do not consider that it casts doubt on the present law regarding the unrecoverability of investment costs as a head of damage. That is a feature of fixing the discount rate.

Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, seeks to change one of the assumptions that the Lord Chancellor is required to make under paragraph 3(3) of the new schedule. Under the amendment, the recipient of the relevant damages would be assumed to invest in a diversified portfolio of investment grade listed debt securities rather than a diversified portfolio of investments. The range of investments to be assumed to be made and included in the diversified portfolio under the amendment is clearly narrower than that under the proposed assumption in paragraph 3(3)(c) at present.

The Bill does not restrict the investments that are to be assumed, save that the overall investment approach must be assumed to fall within the range of risk described in paragraph 3(3)(d). We consider that this approach avoids the rigidity of tying the assumptions to a single type of investment. The Lord Chancellor and the panel can therefore assess what the appropriate investments should be in the circumstance of the review. In making their assessment, the Lord Chancellor and the panel will have to have regard to evidence of how claimants actually invest and the returns actually available to investors. We consider that to be a more sustainable system for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed reply and all other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. On a small point of detail, I think the noble and learned Lord referred to 80% hedge funds. I do not think that is the figure I mentioned, but even at 18% it seems surprisingly high—but there we are.

One outstanding issue is that of how those who are compensated actually make their investments. I draw a parallel with the pensions system. We have just spent quite a long time in this House and at the other end looking at default arrangements for people who have a pension pot and want to transfer it or cash it in on some basis. Encouragement to try to get those individuals to take advice of one sort or another is exercised quite extensively. I raised the same point in relation to people receiving compensation for injury and damages. What happens when they get the cheque? Is there any encouragement for them to get independent guidance on where they should get such advice from? That is still a bit of a mystery to me, even after the debate. I do not know whether there is anything more the Minister can say on that point. The presumption is that individuals will make their own arrangements with presumably regulated advisers. But what about those who do not? What is the process and system that encourages them to avail themselves of investment advice?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not know whether the noble Lord wants me to respond to that but I will, very briefly, if I may, with the leave of the House. Where you have major claims for catastrophic injury, the lawyers involved for the claimants are highly sophisticated. One clear message that I received when discussing this with claimants’ lawyers was that they are concerned not only with the processing and pursuit of the claim itself but with establishing a framework within which the claimant will be able to live. I imagine that almost invariably involves the provision of suitable investment advice, albeit no one is obliged to accept it.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, in practice, when these cases come before a court, particularly where there is a party who lacks capacity, a judge, before approving one of these orders—they have the right to approve or disapprove a settlement—must be satisfied that appropriate advice has been taken on the split between periodical payments and a lump sum and that, generally, it is a satisfactory settlement from the court’s point of view. If they are subject to the Court of Protection, the court will then be able to manage investments according to the best interests of the protected party. If I may say so, the noble Lord has a good point on what happens to those who do not need the approval of the court or who are outside the protected party, and who are like anybody else who comes into a large sum of money in any other context. They will be well advised to take advice: some do; some, I fear, do not.

Grandparents: Legal Rights

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure grandparents have a more effective legal right to see their grandchildren after the parents’ divorce.

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

My Lords, in the first instance, it is for parents to decide what is in the best interests of their children. The Government recognise the important role that grandparents may play in children’s lives and the stability they can provide in families when parents separate. We are keeping the matter under review.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The requirement for grandparents to apply for child arrangement orders is cumbersome, expensive and needs reforming. However, when grandparents need to go to court to maintain contact with their grandchildren, they typically have a relationship problem with one or both parents, rather than a legal problem. In Australia, where there is disharmony following divorce and separation, extended family members can access family relationship centres. Do the Government have plans to ensure that there is similar community-based help—sited, perhaps, in the family hubs slowly emerging across the country?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the requirement for non-parents first to seek leave of the court in order to apply for a child arrangement order is regarded as an important filter mechanism, and was the subject of review by an independent panel in 2011 which came to the same conclusion. With regard to means of alternative dispute resolution, we are of course anxious to see mediation employed in the situation to which the noble Lord refers. He may recollect that at a recent Westminster Hall debate, on 2 May, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice indicated that she was carefully considering the current position and provision. In doing so, we will of course be happy to look at international experience.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

Will the Government consider extending legal aid to grandparents, assuming that the law is changed to allow them to apply, because that would clearly be very helpful in many cases?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The law does not require to be changed in order that grandparents can make an application in respect of an arrangement order for children. As regards legal aid, as the noble Lord is aware, that is currently the subject of a review within the Ministry of Justice.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, with some family experience, I am concerned that a Minister of Her Majesty’s Government was talking about presumptions for grandparents to have contact with their grandchildren. I would hope that that would not go any further, because presumptions are highly undesirable in the law, but it would be useful to review whether grandparents are finding it unusually difficult to get access to the court when they wish to be in touch with their grandchildren.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, with regard to access to the courts, the number of applications for child arrangement orders has generally been in the region of 2,000 over the period since 2011. They have varied slightly, and the number of applications has increased steadily from 2015 to the current year, where the figure is in excess of 2,000. I have certainly not referred to presumption, and various issues would of course arise if we were to consider such a move because, if you contemplate a presumption in favour of grandparents, you are in a sense intruding on the rights of the parent.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, is there really a justification for the two-stage process whereby grandparents have to apply for the right to make an application for a contact order and there is then a filtering system? Would it not be much easier for there to be a single application for a contact order with a filter system for non-parents built into that application, thus saving grandparents a great deal of time and trouble—all, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, points out, without the benefit of legal aid under the current arrangements, which require there to have been domestic violence or abuse?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the matter of seeking permission, whether it be by grandparents or other non-parent applicants for an arrangement order in respect of children, was the subject of independent review by the Family Justice Review panel in 2011. In its final report, published in November 2011, it concluded that the matter of an application for permission should continue.

[Lord Suri (Con)]

My Lords, respect for grandparents’ rights to see their grandchildren should be always in place. In the case of divorced parents, what strong, lawful action can be taken to restore this great and loving tradition?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we respect the right of grandparents to make an application for an arrangement order for children. Indeed, in the context of public law cases, local authorities are directed to consider placing children with relatives where it is not possible for the parents to continue with their care. It is open for grandparents to be appointed as special guardians in such situations.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees with me that grandparents often have a very special relationship in the life of any child, and I congratulate the Government on the recognition of grandparents’ rights, for example, in the crediting of national insurance contributions for grandparents who look after their grandchildren. May I also urge my noble and learned friend to encourage our honourable friend in the other place to reinforce the concerns expressed that denying rights of access for grandparents can often be like a living bereavement? If there is an opportunity to amend the Children Act to give grandparents more rights, I would very much welcome it.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, of course we understand the concern of grandparents with regard to child arrangements. But, as I indicated earlier, this is a difficult field. It is easy to talk of a presumption in favour of grandparents, but if you do that, you are, in effect, intruding on the rights of the parents with respect to the care of the children.