Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord McNally Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

The remedy is in the Government’s hands. It is, in their cherry-picking process of dealing with Lord Justice Jackson’s report, to pluck this particular cherry and use it for the benefit not only of the citizens of this country but of this country’s observance of its international obligations. I strongly support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for his usual thorough presentation of these amendments and for sending me this opinion of learned counsel, which, as he rightly said, was delivered only 24 hours ago. Even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will know, the Ministry of Justice is one of the most efficient and speedy departments in Whitehall, the matter is still in the hands of my advisers, and I am sure that we will take it on board. In passing, I should say that I had to clear another piece of paper the other day about asking the advice of learned counsel, and I saw just how much it costs to ask for such advice, so I thank the noble Lord for such an expensive gift.

I was also interested in the confession of my noble friend Lord Lester about accepting success fees. As the debate has unfolded, it has occurred to me that this is indeed a money Bill, but perhaps not in House of Commons terms. Let me also deal with another canard or slur that has been put across the Chamber from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham: that the Aarhus convention is something new to the Government or to government Ministers. Perhaps I can draw his attention to the fact that on 19 October, we in the Ministry of Justice sent out a consultation paper, entitled Cost Protection for Litigants in Environmental Judicial Review Claims, with the specific aim of enabling the UK to implement its obligations under the Aarhus convention. Yet again, when the facts are known, it is clear that the Government are on the case, on the ball and moving forward, despite the attempts of the Opposition to say otherwise.

[Lord Beecham]

It is said that they are in breach of their obligations under the convention.

[Lord McNally]

As I said, we are consulting. I shall return to the question of getting it right. The problem is that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is impetuous in so many ways, whereas this Government are determined to get things right—you can see the advice that I get on getting things right.

On Monday, we spent some time discussing QOCS and we heard the concerns of my noble friends and others that the matter should appear in the Bill. This afternoon, I do not want to repeat the more general arguments on these matters, but we need to get the details and the rules right to ensure that they are tailored properly in respect of the category of proceedings to which they apply. For example, in personal injury cases, it may well be that there should not be an initial financial test. However, the position is likely to be different for defamation, and perhaps for environmental cases too, which typically involve more than one claimant—sometimes many claimants. In such cases the costs involved can impact considerably on the ability of the public bodies that are under challenge to perform their general functions.

As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, explained in moving his amendment on Monday, he was looking for specific words rather than words like “unreasonable”, which he said had such a broad meaning. Indeed, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, added that the word “unreasonable” was liable to cause serious difficulties of interpretation and yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has confessed, the word “unreasonably” is in Amendment 157.

It is precisely for those reasons that we are not yet ready to crystallise in statute, and ring-fence away from development in rules, words which are more properly left to the rules, where they can follow detailed discussions with stakeholders. They can be tailored and nuanced for the particular category of proceedings and, of course, the Lord Chancellor will remain accountable for the policy on these issues which is reflected through the Civil Procedure Rules.

Amendments 141, 147, 148, 149 and 150 deal with the recovery of ATE insurance premiums in respect of environmental claims under the Aarhus convention. Amendment 157 would introduce a new clause to provide for costs protection in the form of qualified one-way costs shifting—QOCS—for claimants in environmental claims and, it would appear, for all judicial review claims, whether concerning environmental issues or not.

The Government are, of course, conscious of their obligations under the Aarhus convention. Put simply, the convention requires us to ensure that parties have access to a procedure to challenge relevant environmental decisions that is, among other things, not prohibitively expensive. How we discharge those obligations has been a matter of debate for some time. It was addressed by Lord Justice Jackson in his report and was considered in a number of cases in the High Court and above. Amendments 141, 147, 148 and 149 seek to allow ATE insurance premiums to be recoverable from the other party in these cases. As I indicated in our debate on Monday, the Government's policy is that ATE insurance premiums should no longer be recoverable except in the particular instance of clinical negligence expert reports. Therefore, we do not favour this or any other extension of ATE premium recoverability.

Amendment 157 seeks to apply QOCS to environmental claims, subject to qualification in respect of unreasonable behaviour. The proposed clause would displace any rules of court in this area and provide for the Lord Chancellor instead to have the power to make regulations to extend QOCS to other areas in future. That seems to be something of a departure from the general principle that in civil proceedings, matters relating to costs are regulated in detail by rules of court. It is not clear why the departure would be beneficial.

As noble Lords are aware, the Government are introducing a regime of QOCS in personal injury cases to help balance the impact of the changes to no-win no-fee conditional fee agreements, and in particular as an alternative to “after the event” insurance. Claimants will continue to be able to take out ATE insurance if they wish, but they will pay the premium, which will be lower than the rolled-up premiums presently never paid by anyone other than a losing defendant. Although Lord Justice Jackson suggested that QOCS might be considered for use in some non-personal injury claims, the Government are not persuaded that the case for this has yet been made.

I noted the dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friend Lord Lester about protective costs orders, which are also part of this consultation. As a matter of principle, the Government’s view is that protective costs orders can provide appropriate costs protection in environmental cases. Environmental organisations and the working group chaired by the then Mr Justice Sullivan, to whom noble Lords referred, expressed a preference for QOCS, having argued, including in a submission before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, that an appropriate PCO regime could provide full compliance with the requirements of the convention. With a PCO, it will be clear from the outset what costs the claimant will have to pay if their claim is unsuccessful, while ensuring that some contribution is made toward the costs of public bodies that have successfully defended the claim. As I said, we have consulted on the issue.

The Ministry of Justice consultation Cost Protection for Litigants in Environmental Judicial Review Claims outlines proposals for a cost-capping scheme for cases that fall within the Aarhus convention. The consultation closed on 18 January and we will announce the way forward in due course.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I had not realised that there was a consultation, and I am delighted to hear that that has now been done. The issue seems to go beyond environmental litigation. Perhaps further thought might be given within the costs rules to a user-friendly procedure in all public interest cases whereby the individual can obtain an order quickly and at the beginning, as recommended by Lord Evershed’s committee in 1950. Lord Evershed recommended that the Attorney-General should be able to certify an issue of public interest where the costs rules would be displaced. I realise that this matter would be for the rules committee, but could consideration be given to that sensible procedure that would be not generalised but case based, on a user-friendly procedural basis, with the judge giving a decision so that people will know where they are from the beginning?

[Lord McNally]

I am not sure that I am able to commit to anything as rash as following up a recommendation that is a mere 62 years old. As always with interventions by my noble friend, I will take that away, but I should also make the point, given that this is the last of a series of amendments chipping away at—to use the term that I used the other night—the central architecture of the reforms that we are trying to introduce, that we have consulted on these matters. We have indicated the idea that PCOs may be a way forward in our commitment under the Aarhus convention. I will certainly make sure that the learned counsel’s opinion is fully studied. As I have explained, the Government’s view is that the best way forward is within the rules rather than within legislation, but this has given a good airing to the issue. The whole House is now more familiar with the Aarhus convention—I understand it is a Danish town—and we are the better for that debate. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, it is a relief to know that the Ministry of Justice, like New York, never sleeps. No doubt the opinion will be pored over and there will be further discussions before we get to Report.

I invite my noble friend to do this now. He says that the proper way to proceed is for one-way cost-shifting to be introduced by tailored Civil Procedure Rules. Your Lordships will recall that on Monday the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I made the point that there should be guidance from Parliament, not simply a discussion between the Executive and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, about the parameters of those rules and what the boundaries and structure are to be. I would be grateful to know from the Minister the position on this particular point. He is shifting the burden of the success fee and the ATE premium over to the successful claimant. Is that going to be co-ordinated and timed to come into effect at the same time as one-way cost-shifting? That is the key issue. If you do not have one-way cost-shifting, you are shifting to the claimant the liability for the defendant’s entire costs, if he should lose, and consequently an enormous premium. We heard of premiums of £900,000. I am familiar with a premium of £80,000. I think that the standard is in thousands for any sort of claim. If, on the other hand, one-way cost-shifting comes in and the defendants’ costs are paid by the defendants win or lose, we will be concerned with a premium for a much smaller thing, which is the disbursements of the claimant, should he lose. The risk is that much smaller.

[Lord De Mauley]

He did.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I have given my reply. That was the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to my reply. But I am very happy to take the point. We are considering a consultation. We have said that our judgment is that it is better in rules rather than in the Bill.

[Lord Bach]

Should all that not have been done before the legislation comes before one House, let alone a second House of Parliament? The result of the consultation, or the Minister’s consideration of it, will probably not be known until this Bill has become law. Is that not much too late and entirely the wrong way round?

[Lord McNally]

The pained look with which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, comes to the Dispatch Box and implies that the Government is the first Government in the world to bring forward legislation with further consultations needed about specific regulation is a bit rich. The implications of this Bill will come into force in April 2013. We have a period of time for such consultations. As I said before, I take the point that there has to be a synchronisation in these matters. I do not think we are doing anything unusual by legislating in this way, but we take on board the points made in this debate.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for saying there will be synchronisation. The scales of justice have been tipped against defendants by this fourfold cost that they have been calling for over a period of time. The purpose of this Bill is to even the scales of justice up. If there is any period between shifting from that side to this side the success fee and the ATE insurance without providing one-way costs as the balance, the scales will go completely in the opposite direction, and it is the suffering claimants who will come out the worst in a situation like that.

I cannot resist coming back to the question of protective costs orders, having heard my noble friend Lord Lester. Protective costs orders are applied for in public interest cases. I am not concerned simply with public interest cases. These could be the private individual, the householder whose house is flooded, in the example that I gave—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I shall not detain the House long. I very much welcome the contributions by my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I have some sympathy with my noble friend’s approach; he sees in third-party funding arrangements an alternative source of funding for cases that might not otherwise be advanced because of other changes that are in hand. My problem with that is that in effect he is throwing a lifeline to the Government to pursue that very restriction, and that does not serve the cause of access to justice.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, rightly drew attention to the concerns about this matter, and the remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, clearly constitute a significant degree of support for the case advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. It is clear that we are potentially seeing a sea change in the way that some litigation will be funded in a way that runs contrary to the traditions of justice in this country. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to hedge funds, and I think he is right; there is a danger here of legal hedge funds, as it were, being created and a secondary market developing, and who knows whence the funding of those organisations will derive? Experience in the United States is not encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, reminded us. I understand that in America, particularly in divorce cases, huge sums are in play.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has done the House a great service in identifying the issues here and in coming up with a viable framework that could be put in place in order to deal with the potential difficulties. I think that the view of the House, from those noble Lords who have spoken, is that a voluntary code simply will not suffice, however well intended the motivations of those who sought to produce one—and they clearly were well intended. There needs to be a more rigorous structure, and the reference by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to the Lord Chancellor making regulations, coupled with the ideas set out in the noble Lord’s amendment, offer a way forward.

If at this stage the Minister cannot give a clear nod to the amendment, and I can understand if he cannot, then I hope at least that further discussions can be held on the matter and an agreed position put forward on Report. We do not want this genie getting out of the bottle, to which it could not be returned, by default. There are issues here of great significance and we hope the amendment will provide the basis for taking matters forward in a way that can be agreed across the House—I think there is a general interest across the House in this—to the advantage of litigants and the cause of justice itself.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, in 1962—which is now, sadly, 50 years ago—part one of my degree course contained a subsidiary paper on English legal institutions. About the only thing I can remember from that course is the concept of champerty and maintenance. It therefore came as something of a shock to be told that it no longer applied, and indeed had not applied for some time.

[Lord Bach]

The Minister has been misleading us all along. He has played the role of a non-lawyer with immense skill during the debate. I have asked him many questions in our debates but now the truth is out—he is a lawyer.

[Lord McNally]

I have been trying to keep that quiet. The paper I mentioned was one of nine papers that I took in 1962 for my economics degree. The other day I found the statistics paper, which evidently I had passed. However, not only did I not know the answers to the questions, I could not understand the questions.

[Lord Dubs]

Nothing has changed.

[Lord McNally]

I think I had better get on to the brief.

[Lord Beecham]

Could the noble Lord offer his services to the Office for Budget Responsibility?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and useful debate and I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining the matter with his usual thoroughness. Third-party litigation funding has developed and—to use the phrase deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—there is a welling up of disquiet about it. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, takes what I would describe as the Robin Hood approach to this matter and views it rather optimistically as a way for the rich to help the poor. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, was a little more sceptical about that scenario and drew on his American experience of how the process works. I think that people are a little worried when investors and investment opportunities are mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned that matter—when we are talking about the law.

I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, mention Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who I remember speaking from the Cross Benches. You used to see the colour draining from a Minister’s face as he realised that Lord Simon of Glaisdale had thoroughly read and filleted the relevant Bill and knew exactly the contradiction in the government amendment that he was about to dissect. I experience that same feeling of foreboding whenever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rises to speak. The noble and learned Lord said that Lord Justice Jackson could not be criticised for his brevity. All I can say to him is that Lord Justice Jackson is not alone among lawyers in that failing. I look at no one in this House in saying that.

Like other noble Lords, however, I take on board the noble and learned Lord’s point about the need to exercise caution in this matter. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, caught the mood of the House when he referred to the concept of legal hedge funds being established and cases being bundled up as investment opportunities as something that gives rise to rightful concern.

The code of conduct was drawn up with the specific requirement that the matter would be revisited if and when third-party funding expanded. It is a question of whether it has now expanded to a point where the matter should be revisited. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, explained, the Civil Justice Council published a voluntary code of conduct for litigation funders on 23 November. It was drawn up with the co-operation of the Association of Litigation Funders.

What I can say is that some serious points have been made during this debate, to which I have listened extremely carefully. My right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would like further time to reflect on these matters. They are serious, and some serious and worthwhile advice has been given. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is about to leap to his feet, and perhaps I may say that there was good and useful advice on both sides of the argument. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment so that the Lord Chancellor can reflect on this issue. I shall not sit down if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to intervene.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord is extremely kind. Does he agree that the best way of looking at this situation is to try to find the least undesirable possibility, or a less undesirable possibility, of a whole lot of very undesirable possibilities? Those are the only possibilities that exist. It would be lovely if legal aid was universally available for civil justice, and there were people in the 1940s who thought that that might happen. Sir Hartley Shawcross was saying at the time that he thought that legal aid could be turned into a kind of National Health Service equivalent for civil justice. We know that that is not financially conceivable.

The Government are engaged in further cutting back access to legal aid. I disapprove of that because it is an undesirable objective. We introduced conditional fees. I remember having a conversation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, after I introduced an access to civil justice Bill in the House of Commons. He asked me not to take it any further because he was thinking of introducing conditional fees as a government initiative. I agreed with that at the time. He said that the Bill had certain inadequacies and did not cover all cases. However, when we introduced contingency fees, a lot of perversities were attached. I concede that, at first sight, investment in a tort case just as a commercial transaction seems unedifying and unattractive. However, I put it to the noble Lord that all these solutions are undesirable. The most undesirable solution of all might be further to restrict access to civil justice for whole categories of potentially meritorious cases.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am sure that that postscript will be studied by the Lord Chancellor, and he will carefully study this debate. As I was saying in my concluding remarks, I thank my noble friend Lord Thomas for introducing this subject and noble Lords for expressing a variety of views on it. The Lord Chancellor would like further time to reflect and I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I accept that the opposing view, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was certainly an arguable one. I have not suggested that third-party funding should be banned but that it should be subject to statutory regulation, as opposed to the voluntary code.

I could not help reflecting on my rugby days and the occasional game in which the leader of the forwards, an extremely formidable person, would observe the scrum-half dropping the ball and say to us in the pack, “Boys, they’ve had their chance. We’re not going to give it to them again”. Consequently, everything changed and we adopted a different tactic.

Here, a voluntary code has been brought in. They have had their chance. In formulating the voluntary code, they did not include what Lord Justice Jackson rightly set out as the essential needs of such a code. They decided not to do that. When approached by the industry to say that they should limit themselves to commercial litigation, they decided not to do that. A two-page code has been produced of nine clauses which gives the broadest possibilities to the funders for the way in which they operate. I am not satisfied with that. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for their support. There is a perception of a genuine problem arising.

I look forward to further discussion with my noble friend and, perhaps, the Lord Chancellor, and we will see whether we can take forward this matter for Report but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

We need to address this all together. No doubt we agree on the basics. I hope that the Government are seriously thinking of putting down on Report the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill that my right honourable friend Jack Straw MP introduced. If they do, I suspect that they will have not only our support but that of practically the full House. The insurance industry is trapped in practices that drive up premium costs. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Dubs on tabling their amendments and starting the debate in this House. The matter was discussed in the other place—perhaps not as well as it should have been—and the discussion must continue. We look forward very much to the Minister's reply.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing the matter. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Neill and Lord Bach, for their contributions. Part of the latter's contribution was a warm-up for the further debate that we will have on referral fees, and I will make two points about his comments. First, he said that the insurance industry was trapped in practices that drive up premiums. That would be fine if the insurance industry paid the penalty for that merry-go-round, but the reason that there is so much indignation is that the cost falls on the poor consumer. That is why there seems not to be much incentive in the industry to deal with this; companies casually pass on increased costs to the consumer, as we have seen with the escalation of insurance premiums in this area. Secondly, I join my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in praising the road traffic accident portal, which is working extremely well and we are actively looking at where else it could be applied.

As my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained, Amendments 164 and 164ZA would prohibit an insurer making an unsolicited approach to potential claimants in a personal injury case if the insurer was aware that the claimant had legal representation. The amendments also specify the requirements that must be met before an insurer may make an offer to settle such a claim where a claimant does not have, or is thought not to have, legal representation. This includes a requirement to obtain adequate medical evidence of the injury and to advise the claimant of their right to obtain full legal advice before accepting the offer, and to make it clear to the claimant that the offer to settle is full and final. In either of these cases, a failure on the part of the insurer to observe the provisions would render any settlement void.

Third-party contact is the practice by insurers of making an early settlement offer to a claimant or third party where the insurer's policyholder is at fault in a car accident. The Financial Services Authority regulates the insurance industry and requires that insurers treat their customers fairly at all times. This would cover third-party claimants. I should explain that apparently the industry prefers the term “third-party contact” to “third-party capture”. I will leave it to noble Lords to make their choice on that.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Speaking from years of experience in this field, I know that the term “full and final settlement” is often used by insurers at the very beginning of proceedings and negotiations, but I do not think that it is adhered to. It is often possible to obtain a better settlement, so the term is ignored.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord says he speaks from very long experience. As this Bill progresses, I have found that quite often noble Lords on all sides of the House who have more experience than me of the legal profession tell me that there is often a gap between what is written down and the reality of the day-to-day practice.

Third-party contact does not, in itself, cause detriment to consumers and may be to their advantage as a claim can often be resolved quickly. In addition, this practice can allow insurers to reduce the legal costs associated with handling a claim, and this in turn reduces costs for all policyholders. However, I am aware of concerns around the potential risk of conflict of interest and the need for the claimant to have independent legal advice before any settlement is agreed. The FSA undertook a review of third-party contact during 2009-10 and did not find conclusive evidence that unrepresented third parties could have achieved higher compensation had they obtained independent legal representation.

Following the FSA’s review, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, the Association of British Insurers published a code of practice, to which he referred, in June 2010. The code contains specific guidance for insurers on contacting claimants. This limits unsolicited contact. For example:

“Insurers will not make unsolicited visits to an unrepresented claimant at their current address, including hospitals”.

I know we will be returning to some of this later. The code also requires that claimants are informed of their right to seek independent legal advice and of other options available to them to resolve their claim. As I have indicated, the practice was reviewed in 2009-10 but was not found, overall, to be disadvantageous to claimants.

In summary, most of the issues that these amendments seek to address in respect of the handling of third-party contact claims are already covered by existing regulation. The FSA rules require that insurers fully inform third-party claimants of their legal rights, including to independent legal advice, and of alternatives to settling directly with the insurer. In the light of this, we do not believe it is necessary to go along the lines of the noble Lord’s amendment, and I ask him to withdraw it.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am disappointed with that response. I do think it adequately addresses reality as it exists today in the approaches by insurers to accident victims.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, subsection (1) of my amendment prohibits the third party’s insurance company soliciting a claimant,

“where to the knowledge of the insurance company, the claimant is legally represented”.

Subsection (2) refers to a situation where that is not the case: the claimant is not legally represented or the insurance company does not know that he is legally represented. It sets out three terms: that the offer to settle can be made only when the insurance company,

“has obtained adequate medical evidence … and has disclosed it to the claimant; and … the claimant is advised when the offer is made of his right to obtain legal advice; and … the offer is in full and final settlement of the cause of action”.

The sanction that I have quite deliberately put into this amendment is not that it is an offence or anything of that sort but that a settlement made in breach of those subsections shall be void, which means, in effect, that if a person has been bought off for a small sum, he can reopen the matter without any problems. He can go to a solicitor, get proper advice, get a proper medical report and come back. To my mind, that appears to be the right way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, we have heard some powerful speeches about the good work of trade unions and charities, but that is not what this debate is about; it is about the ban on referral fees. In their reports, both Lord Justice Jackson and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, supported the ban on referral fees. The Government believe that the current arrangements under which lawyers and others are able to pay and receive fees for referring personal injury claims have led to higher costs and the growth of an industry that pursues claims for profit.

Lord Justice Jackson recommended that referral fees should be banned as part of his comprehensive package of recommendations to make the costs of civil litigation more proportionate. The prohibition will be enforced by the appropriate regulators, for example the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Financial Services Authority or the claims management regulator. The regulators will also be responsible for taking appropriate action against “regulated persons” for any breaches. The Government believe that requiring regulators to enforce the ban is the most effective and proportionate response.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made a powerful case, as he did the other night, for help for those suffering from exposure to asbestos, but I do not believe that he should then link that deep concern to one form of fundraising for charity. Indeed, it is debatable whether it is any healthier for a charity than any other body to have such a dependency relationship with lawyers who are supposed to be providing a professional service, so we are not convinced that any exemption should be made for charities.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, if there is a depletion of funds of charities such as the one that I described today, are the Government saying that if those charities cannot raise that through voluntary endeavour and voluntary giving, the Government themselves will fill their coffers?

[Lord McNally]

No, of course the Government cannot do that. There was one thing that I was interested in. I do not know this because it is always dangerous to think aloud at the Dispatch Box, but on the powerful case for aid for charity I do not see why wealthy solicitors’ firms or wealthy solicitors could not make donations to that charity as long as there was no link with the search for work. It is worrying to have a charity that is dependent on making referral fees to certain solicitors. I am more comfortable with our banning referral fees.

In a way, the same applies to what has been said about trade unions. I fully accept the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Martin, about the services that trade unions offer working people in this country. My father worked for 47 years for ICI and was a lifetime member of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. When I hear attacks on health and safety, I know the importance of health and safety in industry, but that should not be linked to a relationship with a professional service organisation.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I may have failed to declare an interest in that I am a member of Unite. It used to be the metalworkers’ union and then it became another union. When I looked today, it was still called Unite, but it might change its name tomorrow.

[Lord McNally]

It might. Some of them sound like coffee bars rather than trade unions these days, but perhaps that is part of the marketing. Certainly, the case of the trade unions was made very strongly by those who intervened. The service that trade unions provide their members no one gainsays—it is important—but we do not believe that that link between referrals and certain legal firms should be exempted from a general ban on referral fees. There must be those who have worked for trade unions who do not pay referral fees. I do not know. As a layman, I see referral fees as a distortion of the market, but there is nothing to stop trade unions having a good close working relationship with particular law firms. Some have had long-standing relationships. However, I cannot tell the House that we are willing to make an exception.

The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the payments by solicitors to other solicitors for the transfer of prescribed legal business, and we believe that that argument is rational and sensible. If for any reason a solicitor decides that a piece of business needs to be transferred, perhaps for the geographical reason that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, gave or because the solicitor realises that it is beyond the competence of his or her firm, it would be perfectly reasonable to see a transfer. When the transfer is made, the solicitor concerned is able to claim an appropriate amount of money for the work dispersed before the transfer was made. We accept that logic. However the Government’s view is that reasonable payments of this type are not captured by the ban as long as they only cover the work undertaken by a firm in respect of the claim prior to it being transferred to a new firm. If there is a referral fee element to the payment, this would be subject to the referral fee prohibition and is a matter best dealt with by the regulator rather than by legislation.

Although I know that parts of this reply will disappoint noble Lords, we appreciate the widespread support for our ban on referral fees. We believe that this is the best way to lead our proposal to provide the most effective and proportionate way of preventing payment for personal injury claims and squeezing a bad practice out of the industry. We therefore invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has signified his support for the Government, but he is the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has done so in respect of these amendments. We have had some powerful speeches from a variety of people with an interest in and experience of litigation of this kind: distinguished lawyers such as the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Elystan-Morgan; people with direct experience of the shop floor, such as the noble Lord, Lord Martin; people with a lifetime in the trade union movement, assisting members and no doubt helping them to make their legitimate claims for compensation and advice, such as the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Monks; and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with his extensive experience of the voluntary sector. They have all made a very clear case for exempting trade unions and charities from the restrictions of this Bill.

We agree that there is a problem with the referral of claims and the industry that has grown up around them. That is commercial exploitation, which may well lead to expectations being aroused and cases perhaps being brought that should not be brought. That is why we support the thrust of the Government’s proposals. However, the Government and the noble Lord appear to be comfortable with third-party funding of litigation—subject, as we have heard and discussed in a previous debate, to possible regulation—but not at all comfortable with an arrangement by trade unions or charities for a referral fee for passing instructions, and no doubt assistance as well, to solicitors that they are recommending on behalf of their members. There is an element of quality assurance in that too. I do not understand, in this context, what the evil is that the Government’s proposals on referral fees are supposed to be curing. Who loses by the process that is being advocated in these amendments by those who support them? Where is the loss? There is no loss to the public purse, the insurance industry or defendants. There is no loser. It is not at all analogous to the commercial exploitation about which we spoke.

This curious matter, to which I referred in moving the amendments in the first place and which I will take a little further now, arises under Clause 54(8) , which provides that:

“Payment includes any form of consideration (but does not include the provision of hospitality that is reasonable in the circumstances)”.

You can take somebody for a drink but you cannot provide any other service. Page 47 of the Explanatory Notes says:

“Subsection (8) provides that a referral fee can be any form of consideration (which would include, for example, an offer by a solicitor to take on other work at a reduced rate or for no payment at all), other than normal hospitality”.

As part of my firm’s relationships with trade union clients, I used to offer a free will to a client for whom we acted after being referred to us by a trade union. We would offer free initial advice about other matters not connected with their personal injury claim, such as a matrimonial, employment or even a criminal matter. All of that would be caught by the Bill as it stands and as set out in these Explanatory Notes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

Not all firms are large firms, and it will not surprise Members to know that my firm was not—and is not—a large one. However, we have had that kind of relationship. The profitability of firms conducting litigation of this kind is not high in any event, even without the question of referrals. I do not think that there are the kind of consequences that the noble Lord assumes to be the case. Equally, organisations with members seeking to derive the best service that they can for their members ought to be free to do that. I repeat that I do not think this Bill is at all on the right lines in what it is seeking to do. I again respectfully direct the Minister’s attention to the peculiar circumstances that subsection (8) proposes.

I was going to finish by commending again the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about solicitor-to-solicitor arrangements. He made a very strong case there, and I regret that the Minister seems to have just dismissed it out of hand. Certainly—

[Lord McNally]

I ask the noble Lord to read Hansard tomorrow. We have made it extremely clear that we do not think that the kind of relationship outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will be caught by this ban. It will be regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and I hope my statement from the Dispatch Box will give it some help in carrying out that duty. The Government do not believe that that kind of relationship, where a solicitor transfers business and takes a reasonable charge for the work already done, is covered by this ban.

[Lord Beecham]

I do not think it is necessary to confine the payment to precisely the basis that the noble Lord identifies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, if I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord, but I do not think it is our intention to move that Bill on Report.

On the noble Lord’s final remarks about whiplash, my advisers’ hearts will sink but they knew this was coming at some point in this debate. I had personal experience of a minor bump, which at the time was settled by my saying, “Send me the bill and I’ll pay for it”. This somehow escalated over the next few weeks into a case handled by a solicitor’s firm 200 miles from where the accident happened, with a doctor’s verification of whiplash made in Manchester, 180 miles from where the accident happened. Worst of all, when I wrote to the insurance company and said, “This is a scam and a fraud, and we’re willing to give all kinds of evidence that it is”, I got a letter back saying that they would settle for £5,000. Presumably the doctor, the solicitor and the injured party with his whiplash all got a cut, but who paid for it? Not the insurance company but the payers of insurance—the customers.

A number of similar stories have been told around the House; there have been two or three today. To my mind this is rampant corruption, not just an abuse. Whether or not there actually is a compensation culture, the behaviour of these companies feeds the perception that there is because so many of our citizens have experience of this. That is reinforced by these companies’ adverts, which I asked Questions about over 10 years ago when I first came into the House. I had been off with a dose of flu and that was the first time I had been exposed to daytime television and advert after advert that looked almost like a lottery win, showing someone with a big cheque that they had won for some minor injury. That is where the idea of the compensation culture came from.

This has been a good debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones that the Government have sympathy with the intention behind Amendment 165. Unsolicited calls about personal injury are a nuisance at best, and at worst create precisely the impression of a compensation culture to which he referred. However, there is existing legislation on unsolicited calls. We will need to consider whether further legislation is needed and, if so, whether this is the right way forward, but the Government will consider the amendment further.

The intention behind Amendments 166A and 166B seems to be to make the ban more effective and harder to evade. The Government believe that the referral fee clauses as drafted should cover the concerns that the amendments seek to address, although of course we wish to ensure that the ban is as effective as possible. I therefore thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for raising these two issues. We are sympathetic to the intention behind them and would like to consider them further. I am afraid that I cannot give him a more specific timeline about those considerations, but we take due note of the points that he made.

In response to Amendments 167 and 168 to Clause 55, I assure noble Lords that Clause 55 requires regulators to have arrangements in place to monitor and enforce the prohibition on the payment or receipt of referral fees. Under this clause, any payment can be treated as a referral fee unless the solicitor or other party can show that the payment was for the provision of a particular service. However, I noted my noble friend’s points on that. It will be up to the regulators to define that issue in a way that does not prohibit legitimate activity. However, the amendments tabled by my noble friends would alter the way in which legitimate payments for services are defined. Amendment 167 to Clause 55 would ensure that pooled marketing would be a service exempted from the ban. Amendment 168 would remove the Lord Chancellor’s powers to make regulations specifying the maximum amount that can be paid for those services.

Under our provisions, it will be for the relevant regulators to enforce the ban on referral fees and impose appropriate sanctions. The regulator will also have the power to require the regulated persons to show that payments for “marketing” do not include a referral fee—that is, that any marketing costs are reasonable and appropriate. The pooling of marketing resources—my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred to this—in our view does not in itself breach the prohibition on referral fees. However, it is important to understand that any potential breach will depend on how the information provided by the claimant is passed on by the organisation that holds it to the solicitor who takes on the claimant’s case.

The Government believe that the appropriate regulators are best placed to monitor and assess payments made in these circumstances, particularly in taking a view as to whether a breach has occurred. That said, the Lord Chancellor’s powers to make regulations are essential if the prohibition on referral fees is to be effective. The Government need to be able to respond to situations as they arise. I believe that these amendments are unnecessary and would serve only to hinder the Government and the appropriate regulators in enforcing the referral fee ban. In addition, the likely effect would be to encourage inflated marketing costs in order to get around the ban on referral fees. I therefore invite my noble friends not to press their amendments.

I am sorry to have delayed noble Lords who are due to speak in the pensions debate, which is the next business. If they can get the Chamber warmed up while we are away, we will be eternally grateful.