Opt-out Collective Court Actions and Connected Litigation Funding

Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

We are committed to legislating. I hear the noble Lord’s concern about that, but I want to reassure the House that we are committed to legislating when parliamentary time allows. We are working urgently to identify a new legislative vehicle to take this forward. Legislation will clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, and this will mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that without litigation funding, Alan Bates would never have been able to bring his fantastic legal action against the Post Office, and does he recognise that this is an urgent matter?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do recognise that, and I know the history of Sir Alan Bates’ involvement in this. Sir Alan Bates has spoken openly about how, without a litigation funding agreement, he and the sub-postmasters would not have had their day in court. We agree with Sir Alan that third-party funding is crucial for enabling ordinary people to access justice. The access to justice point is the centre of why we think this is important, and I know that is what noble Lords feel too. With group and consumer claims, third-party funding under a litigation funding agreement is often the only option people have to bring a claim. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about access to legal aid as well. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that we understand the importance of it in relation to the sub-postmasters and to Sir Alan Bates.