Probate: Delays

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Bassam of Brighton

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the term “profit” is not really appropriate in this context. As the noble Lord is well aware, any fees over and above cost in the court system are attributed to its other features so that, for example, victims of domestic violence can have their fees waived with regard to court applications. As regards the present state of the legislation, an approval Motion has not yet been laid in the other place.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that when the probate fees were brought before your Lordships’ House, part of the argument for increasing them by as much as 200% was that this money would be set aside to fund part of the MoJ’s primary service? Does the noble and learned Lord think that this represents good value for money given the delays now occurring in probate?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I have already explained the reasons for the delays in March of this year with regard to the processing of probate applications, which were not related to the fees or the proposed new fees in respect of probate. In so far as there is any cost plus fee being charged for probate, that cost would be attributed to other court services provided by this department.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Bassam of Brighton

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

[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.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Bassam of Brighton

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

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Can the Minister assure me that there will be consultation with the trades unions? Given the case he is making, it is important that that should take place. Their experience here is highly relevant.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Trades unions’ experience is, essentially, filtered through claimant solicitors such as Thompsons, and those being consulted include representatives of both claimant and defendant groups—so that is being done. However, I would be perfectly happy to meet the noble Lord, and such representative groups as he may wish to bring to a meeting, to discuss the proposed increase in the limits on small claims. If he wishes to do that, I shall be perfectly content for him to contact my private office, and we can make suitable arrangements. At this time, however, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

There are other amendments in this group, are there not?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There are indeed, and that was why I wondered at the noble Lord’s reticence. If the noble Lord wishes to speak to them, I am not the person to stand between him and the remainder of the Committee.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his prompt rising, as it were, from a sedentary position. My Amendment 42A is in this group. On the Bill as a whole, in Clause 4 the Government seem to recognise the problem of what are called “pre-med offers”, yet fail to ensure that they are sufficiently discouraged. We are in the same territory here but perhaps not seeking to approach it in the same way. My understanding is that such offers are made to people sometimes at a point of vulnerability following injury and sometimes, it has to be said, in the most cynical of circumstances—when sick pay runs out and after putting in a denial, which, although clearly weak, sometimes worries people.

Lawyers for claimants have a professional duty to put an offer to their client. There are many circumstances in which desperate people ignore the advice to reject that comes with that offer and accept what is offered, however inappropriate the sum is to the injuries that they have suffered. Pre-med offers are not made to be fair or reasonable. The offers are often made by defending insurers to get rid of a case cheaply, and I quite accept that the Government are right to seek to prohibit them. The consequence of acceptance in the absence of a medical report is that if the injured person later develops conditions arising from the accident, they will of course fall back on the NHS to support them. They will have no compensation to get treatment and the cost will fall more widely on society and the taxpayer. Meanwhile, the insurer for the guilty party who caused the injury will have walked away having saved money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would place the requirements for medical reports to be provided by an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo portal or other experts specified by the Lord Chancellor in regulations. Currently, the Civil Procedure Rules require any initial medical report in support of a whiplash claim to be sought through the MedCo IT portal, which is established and proves, as the noble Lord indicated, the independence and quality of these medical reports. The Civil Procedure Rules also require that all MedCo medical reports must be provided by an accredited medical expert. I am therefore uncertain what additional benefit the amendments would add to that process, because we already have in place the requirement that it should be a MedCo report that is obtained.

Indeed, the amendments could have a negative impact on the success of MedCo as, on one view, it would widen the pool of medical experts to any person with medical qualifications rather than someone who has been accredited specifically for these types of report by MedCo. I may have misunderstood Amendment 41, but that appears to be what its result would be, although that may be unintended. I emphasise that we consider that the creation of MedCo, as adjusted recently, has been a success and will continue to be so. We require that parties should have to go through the MedCo portal for an appropriate independent expert report before these claims are settled.

So I ask the noble Lord to reconsider the terms of the amendment because we do not feel that it adds anything to the Bill. I believe we have a common intention here and it may be that I have misunderstood what lies behind Amendment 41, but at present we believe the present structure of MedCo reports and the portal is appropriate as it stands, and at this stage we would not be prepared to contemplate the amendments that have been moved. If the noble Lord wishes to discuss this matter further with me, I will be content to do so because it may be that I have somehow misunderstood the intent of Amendment 41 in that regard.

I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. We looked at the whole question of how it would be most appropriate to deal with claims that were settled without a MedCo report. That would place the insurer or relevant party settling the claim in breach of their own regulatory requirements, and appropriate steps would be taken. In due course, as we know under the financial regulation Bill that is currently going through, that would be the FCA in respect of claims management companies.

I draw attention to Clause 5(6), which states:

“A breach of section 4 does not make an agreement to settle the whiplash claim in question void or unenforceable”.


We adopted that approach to ensure that the claimant should not suffer at all in circumstances where the person making the settlement did so without the report. In other words, the claimant would be entitled to retain all sums paid in those circumstances. If we make the agreement void, the sector would potentially seek recovery of the sums passed in respect of a void transaction. I appreciate that the noble Lord seeks to qualify that, but it raises complex issues over contract liability. We believe that we have taken the correct approach by ensuring that the person making the settlement, who is a regulated party, will be in breach of their regulatory regime if they do so without a MedCo report, while equally ensuring that the claimant should not suffer because of that misfeasance, and should be able to retain the settlement sum.

We do not believe that there is a major issue in this context with regard to those who are persuaded to settle early but, if that is an issue, it is more widely encountered across personal injury claims as a whole, and we do not see any basis for taking an exceptional route in regard to whiplash injury claims. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that there is a mechanism to protect the claimant and enforce the requirements of Clause 4 against those who are settling claims.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his attempt at reassurance. I will reflect on his words, but I may come back with something on Report because I want to ensure that we have that protection there.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I quite understand the noble Lord’s concern, and I would be willing to consider any further amendment that he puts forward on this in due course. At this stage, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Probation: Voluntary Sector

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Bassam of Brighton

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, with respect to this reference to crisis, I remind the noble Lord of what the chief inspector said in her report:

“We found that the quality of services was variable, but reasonable overall”.


We aim to improve that. We do not intend to sit down at present with particular parties, but we are addressing the recommendations in the chief inspector’s report, which is the proper way forward.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell us what the current recidivism rate is.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to answer such a general proposition but I will undertake to check the relevant statistics in that area and to write to the noble Lord in due course. I will of course place a copy of the letter in the Library.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Bassam of Brighton

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

May I ask the Minister a further point? I am trying to help him. He seems to be suggesting that this provision is a mere tidying up facility that is available to a Minister as a consequence of this Bill. I understand that point, but will he describe the sort of tidying up that he envisages this power being used for? I think that is what acts as a driver of our concerns. I can understand if it is a practical measure to do with something that is clearly a defect, but I want some reassurance, which perhaps should be placed in the legislation. I want to understand what the provision will be used for and its consequences.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his assistance, which is always welcome. I do not agree with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, regarding the breadth of the provision. This is a standard type of power contained in many Acts of Parliament to deal with consequential issues, such as those alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. A very similar power can be found in the Scotland Act 1998, in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in the Government of Wales Act 1998, and in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO. All these statutory provisions have a similar consequential power for the same purpose, so this is not unique, exceptional or unusual.

However, I understand concerns being expressed about the scope of the power and the way it will be used. I notice the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, to the use of the term “appropriate”, which some, of course, often consider to be inappropriate in a statutory context. I hear what is said about making clear that this is a consequential power that will be needed to repeal provisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked for examples. If we look at the various statutory provisions for accession of other countries to the EU—the Croatian accession is the most recent—which amend the ECA, it is necessary to address that sort of primary legislation. If we look at the provisions of the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, as has been noted, this is in a sense a continuation of a lengthy debate we had in Committee in response to, I think, Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will not repeat all that was said from the Dispatch Box in the context of that debate but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will not think that, because I am taking this amendment relatively briefly, I am taking it relatively lightly. Indications were given at the time of that earlier debate as to our consideration of this matter.

EU law is of course comprised of many things, including domestic primary and secondary legislation, converted EU regulations, decisions and EU legislative and non-legislative provisions. Due to the breadth of retained EU law, it is therefore unique in its nature. That is why the Government deliberately chose to tread carefully and not simply to assign this new category of law, retained EU law, to a single category of domestic legislation. Treating all retained EU law as primary legislation may be possible but such a broad approach will inevitably raise unforeseen and uncertain consequences—the very thing we want to avoid. If one looks at an EU provision that deals with the content of a particular chemical and those contents are to change, are we to address that only by way of primary legislation? I suspect that if that were the case, we would be sitting much later than we have in the last few days of this Committee.

Again, treating it all as secondary legislation may also pose considerable difficulties because of the interaction between retained EU law and other domestic legislation which is in the form of primary legislation. This is not a straightforward exercise, which is why it was thought fit to identify certain areas where it should be treated as primary—for example, in the context of human rights—and other areas where Ministers would be allowed the opportunity to consider how best to deal with the issue, albeit as cases arise.

I notice that there is a concern about how the matter is to be approached but it is not one that identifies a universally approved approach. I noted what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said about the treatment of retained EU law in the context of a qualification with regard to what is brought into domestic law by way of Clause 2, for example, and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said about Professor Paul Craig’s solution, which we discussed previously in Committee in reference to Amendment 33.

We have taken that on board and we believe that at present, the position we have adopted is the correct one for achieving maximum legal certainty after exit day and for ensuring the most appropriate outcome across the domestic statute book. Equally, we recognise the need to look at alternatives in the context of, for example, Professor Paul Craig’s proposals, and perhaps to look at it in a different context altogether: that of outcomes rather than, in the first instance, identification of whether it is primary or secondary. That is what we indicated we would do when this matter came up for debate before in Committee, and what we are doing. In that context, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment at this time.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I am intrigued by the Minister’s reply. I guess I shall have to look back at the debate on Amendment 33, which he referenced earlier, but I am far from satisfied on this point. While I have been sitting here, I have been thinking of an example of what Ministers can actually do with pieces of primary and secondary legislation, and one comes to mind.

Towards the end of our time in government, an amendment was passed in this House very much against my better judgment; I was rather horrified by it. It basically had the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to bring forward an order to give effect to the particular amendment. I went back to the department and said, “Look, this is terrible. We lost this vote in the House yesterday and it means that you will have to do something that we really do not want to do and that would be quite wrong”. The Secretary of State very simply said to me, “Don’t worry about it: I simply won’t bring forward the order”. That is a powerful position to be in if you are Secretary of State. The order was never forthcoming. I am sure there are many examples of a similar nature that will be adopted by Secretaries of State, not just now but in the future.

That makes me think that we may be giving a Secretary of State—a Minister—far too much by enabling them to decide what is and is not secondary and primary legislation. I do not know whether that was in the mind of the Constitution Committee when it particularly picked this out, but it was right to be alive to that concern. I was grateful for the support for the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, because he is long experienced in these matters. He has a very wary and thoughtful eye on legislation and what it is.

I accept that we are in somewhat exceptional circumstances in that we are dealing with EU retained law, but the Minister will have got the message that we are very concerned and the concern is rather broad. In the end, what we put in primary legislation makes a difference and has the effect of changing people’s lives. Giving too much power to Ministers to determine what they can sneak in through secondary legislation, where we can do far less about it and do far less to improve its quality, is a proper constitutional concern that this House might express. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Leveson Inquiry Update

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Bassam of Brighton

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

It is a nonsense for the Minister to say that getting rid of Section 40 will enable there to be a thriving local press. We in this Chamber all know that the reason why there is not a thriving local press is that the value of local advertising has gone down because it has competition from online. The truth is that without the investment going in that advertising unlocks, the local press will continue to shrink. Not a shred of evidence has been produced this afternoon to suggest that with the repeal of Section 40 the local press is suddenly going to bloom and flourish.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I did not suggest it was going to suddenly bloom and flourish; it may be more a case of managed decline. There are other factors impacting on our local printed media, there is no question of that, but one of those threats was contained within the provisions of Section 40 of the Act.

Asylum Seekers: Legal Advice

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Lord Bassam of Brighton

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it is clearly in the interests of genuine asylum seekers that the system for seeking asylum as permitted under the UN convention should not be abused and should not be seen to be abused.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, according to an Amnesty report published in 2017, over 2,000 young people seeking refuge in the UK were deported to Afghanistan between 2007 and 2015, the majority of them since the legal aid cuts were introduced. Does the Minister agree with Amnesty that the UK is in breach of its international obligations and law, and if so what steps do the Government intend to take to put this right?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we do not agree that we are in breach of our international law obligations, nor is it obvious that there is a connection between the figures given by the noble Lord and the availability of legal aid.