Legal Aid Agency: Cybersecurity Incident

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this cyberattack and its result have exposed the lamentable insecurity of the Legal Aid Agency data systems. The ramifications are serious. The personal information that goes into legal aid applications and is held by legal aid providers includes much highly confidential material, which can be used by criminals not just to embarrass but to defraud and, in some cases, harass applicants for legal aid. We are told that the attackers in this case accessed residential addresses, contact details, dates of birth, and employment and financial data—indeed, much of the material that identity checkers seek and criminals could profit from. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said, it appears to have affected 2 million items of data and legal aid applications going back as far as 2010. In addition, as became clear in the House of Commons, that information would have included sensitive medical information. Indeed, that must be right, because many applicants for legal aid would include such information with their applications. Can the Minister say whether there are plans to establish a dedicated helpline or other support systems, and if so what support systems, for individuals who may seek advice or protection in the light of this attack?

Of course, our first condemnation is for the callous criminality of the attackers, whose actions exposed so many vulnerable individuals to risk. These cyberattacks appear, according to the Minister in the other place, to have come from organised crime. It would be helpful for the Minister, so far as possible and without jeopardising security, to give an account to the House of what steps the Ministry of Justice takes routinely and has taken in the light of this case to protect the data of those seeking to access legal aid.

This question is similar to one asked by the noble and learned Lord: will the MoJ carry out a full independent inquiry into this attack, and what can be done to restore public confidence in its future cybersecurity arrangements? We understand the need for the Legal Aid Agency’s systems to go offline in the short term, as they have, but can the Government say how long the shutdown of online services is likely to last and how far the legal aid system will be impacted through delays and in reduced ability to deal with its workload?

We should not underestimate the degree to which the MoJ’s IT systems are antiquated, inefficient, insecure and, frankly, unfit for purpose. We on these Benches agree that that results from a neglect of the system over years under the preceding Administration. As the Statement rightly points out, the Law Society has been complaining for years about the outdatedness of our legal aid IT systems. The £20 million promised for updating the agency’s systems will help. However, regrettably, I worry that there is some complacency about the sentence in the Statement that reads:

“At this stage, we believe that the breach is contained to the Legal Aid Agency’s systems; there are no indications that other parts of the justice system have been impacted”.


Can the Minister say whether the Government will now institute a survey of current IT systems across the department to consider their security? Will the department also institute a system of regular cybersecurity audits for the future, to ensure robust defence of its digital systems and to prevent recurrence of this breach?

More widely, this event should act as a wake-up call for government as a whole to investigate how far its IT systems can provide the public with a high standard of data security. We hope that the promised cybersecurity and resilience Bill will bring some improvement, but we will not keep citizens’ data secure without investing the necessary resources. The reality is that we are working with old and inefficient systems that, frankly, grow creakier and creakier, just as the ingenuity and criminality of the potential attackers becomes ever more sophisticated, not least as the value of personal data rises and the potential for its abuse becomes ever greater.

The Statement rightly reminds us that every organisation is at risk from this kind of criminal behaviour and government is not exempt. As a vital part of the social compact, it is a responsibility of government to keep the personal data it holds on individuals secure. If government fails to live up to that responsibility, it rightly forfeits public trust and we concerned are to know, from the Government, how they intend to retain that trust.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

I thank both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for their questions. I will endeavour to answer them as fully as I can. I say at the outset that I share their sense of concern about this breach. It is undoubtedly very serious—one of the more serious ones that have happened to Governments in recent years. I agree, of course, with the point that the noble and learned Lord made, that the primary responsibility is with the criminals who themselves undertook this hacking of the LAF systems.

I want to check and correct one point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. He spoke about medical records. As far as we are aware, there are no medical records contained within this system. There is other information available, which is, of course, a great cause for concern, but there are no medical records that we are aware of.

The noble and learned Lord asked when Ministers were first made aware of this breach. The departmental staff stood up an immediate operational response upon being made aware and ministerial colleagues and I have been updated throughout. There is a cross-departmental response under way. But it is fair to say that the seriousness of the breach became evident only some time after we were made aware of the initial breach. It was when the situation worsened that it was decided to put the information in the public domain and report the incident to Parliament.

Noble Lords asked how many people have been affected. We have not put forward a number as such. However, they are right to say that we are talking about all the data going back to 2010. That is many thousands of people. The nature of the data is, indeed, personal and people need to take remedial action if they have had interactions with the Legal Aid Agency to make sure that their data is not compromised. So, if people try to contact them on numbers they do not recognise and so forth, they need to be suspicious and careful.

Another central question was about what the Government are advising people to do if they think they may be victims of this theft of data. The primary port of contact will be the providers themselves—the lawyers and barristers who have been using the Legal Aid Agency. They will be in a better position to advise the people who may be victims. However, if we are made aware of individual people who are particularly vulnerable, the MoJ or the Legal Aid Agency will also endeavour to contact them directly. But the primary source of information will be from the providers themselves.

The noble and learned Lord asked me to comment on the nature of the attack. I cannot do that because there is a criminal investigation under way. I will not comment or speculate on the motive either.

Both noble Lords asked about the current operational system. The current system is offline. We hope to get it online as soon as possible, but I am not in a position to give any commitment on that front. I can say that there are systems in place to ensure that the providers themselves will get paid, so that they can continue to work, but it will be a reduced method of payment. I do not mean that the amount of money is less but there will be less systemisation within the payment, if I may put it like that. Nevertheless, the payments will be made in the immediate future.

I reassure noble Lords that all the various government agencies have been informed about this. There is an ongoing risk assessment and there will be an update to Parliament when appropriate.

I can also tell the noble and learned Lord that the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland have been informed and are well aware of this. Although, as he rightly observed, they have stand-alone systems, there is overlap between the two systems. So, although their own systems will not be affected by this, it may be that they will have more restricted access to data from the Legal Aid Agency, which covers England and Wales.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked about a full independent inquiry. I cannot make that commitment, but I can absolutely say that this is being taken extremely seriously across government. There has been a review of systems in other parts of government and, as far as we know, there are no similar hacking attacks in other parts of government, although of course one should not be complacent about these things. I am absolutely sure that these reviews of the other systems will be ongoing, just to check that no future hacks become apparent.

I do not think it is fair for the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to say that there was a degree of complacency in the statement that we believe the breach is contained; that is an honestly held belief. The many professionals involved in containing this particular breach, but also looking across government, are very acutely aware of how systems need to be updated and kept under review, and there needs to be investment. The noble Lord mentioned the sum of money the Government are going to invest, but it is worth repeating the point made by my honourable friend Sarah Sackman that this breach came to light only because of the extra money we are currently putting into the system. It would not have come to light without that additional investment. But, of course, we want to go further, and we need to go further to make sure that the systems are updated as far as possible.

I do not want to make the obvious political points about the legacy systems. I think we all understand the position we are in. Nevertheless, this is a serious matter, we are not at the end of the road yet and I absolutely undertake that we will keep Parliament informed as the situation develops.

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the exoneration of Peter Sullivan after 38 years in prison, what assessment they have made of performance of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in dealing with cases of miscarriage of justice quickly and decisively.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, my deepest sympathies are with Peter Sullivan for the miscarriage of justice he has faced. The whole criminal justice system must learn from what happened here. I also express my sympathies for Diane Sindall’s family. MoJ officials hold regular meetings with the CCRC executive to monitor the organisation’s performance, and they use a range of factors, including case review timeliness, to do so. The CCRC has a target of completing 85% of cases within 12 months of receiving them. The most recent annual report, which covers the financial year 2023-24, shows that it met or exceeded this target in 10 months out of 12.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Of course, Peter Sullivan’s case is even more extreme than Andrew Malkinson’s—38 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. The issues arising include the CCRC’s refusal to review the case in 2008, the delay in re-examining DNA samples until 2021 and then the further four years it took to bring the case before the Court of Appeal. Pending the promised CCRC review, which the noble Lord mentioned on 7 May, how will the Government now ensure that all current cases are considered urgently and with some independent oversight?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The ministry has provided additional funding for the CCRC to look at closed cases where advances in forensic science could now provide new evidence. The CCRC is actively working with the Forensic Information Databases Service to ensure that it can effectively track and revisit unmatched DNA profiles. The CCRC is in the process of amending its case management system so that it can identify and monitor any cases for relevant scientific, medical or other developments—for example, when DNA testing does not produce a profile.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the CCRC currently has 10 cases before it of postmasters who used the Capture system, a forerunner of the Horizon software system at the Post Office. Those cases date back to the early 1990s; those individuals are often now in ill health and have been waiting for justice for too long. What pressure can my noble friend put on the CCRC to review those cases as a matter of urgency? Otherwise, those individuals will not get justice before many of them pass away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I shall write to him. I do not have an answer to the point that he raises, but I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of the CCRC board.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, does it not add insult to injury that, after a person has spent the whole of their life wasted in jail, they do not get immediate compensation as soon as they are released? I have read that one of them has been waiting for years. There should be no cap on the compensation; it should be given absolutely immediately so that the person emerging from prison has something to fall back on. We cannot let them loose on the streets with no compensation.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The Government are actively looking into the concerns raised about the compensation cap and will provide an update on that matter in due course. We would encourage Mr Sullivan to make an application to the miscarriage of justice application service, and we will prioritise his application because of the length of his prison sentence.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, since we discussed the CCRC last week, it has become apparent that Mr Chris Henley KC, who wrote a review of the CCRC in relation to the Malkinson case, thinks that the chief executive gave inaccurate evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee. Nobody places any blame on the Secretary of State or on the Minister in this place for the current state of the CCRC, but has the time not come for the decision on who should be the next chair of the CCRC to be made not in the near future but today? It is unravelling quickly, and there will be more Malkinsons and more cases of that hideous nature unless the Government really grab hold of it and take charge.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord raised those points a couple of weeks ago and, since then, we have had the letters in the Sunday Times about the appearance of the chief executive in front of the Justice Select Committee. I shall not comment on that, because the CCRC is an independent body, but it has already begun to implement a number of the Henley recommendations—and, of course, we intend to go further on that. On the appointment of the interim chair, as the noble and learned Lord will know the objective is to have an interim chair for 18 months to review the CCRC’s operations. An individual has been identified and is going through the approvals process, so the announcement will be made imminently.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, at the reverse end of the spectrum, we have a case that has gone before the Criminal Cases Review Commission for preliminary consideration—the Lucy Letby case—with all the uncertainty that must be creating for the families, particularly as they are also having to navigate a public inquiry. Can the Minister satisfy this House that there is adequate resource within the commission to deal with that case expeditiously?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

There has actually been an increase in resource for the CCRC over the past five years or so, partly to meet the point on forensics that I made in answer to an earlier question. If there is a disproportionate extra amount of work because of the particular case to which the noble Baroness refers then I will make sure that the authorities within the MoJ are aware of that but, as I say, there has actually been an increase in resource for the CCRC for a number of years now.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, any miscarriage of justice has tragic consequences, not only for the wrongly convicted but for the victims of the original crime. It is also liable to undermine public confidence in the justice system. We have seen recent cases where innocent persons have spent tens of years in prison despite repeated applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. There is a concern that the commission has been overly cautious in referring cases back to the Court of Appeal, so what measures will be taken to address that concern? Will they include a question over the composition of the commission, and not just its chairmanship?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The short answer to the noble and learned Lord’s question is yes. The review, which, as I said, will take about 18 months, will indeed look at the CCRC’s composition. Of course, the Law Commission is due to produce its report next year, so with the combination of these activities we see some radical reform of the CCRC on the horizon.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister give us any indication of how many outstanding cases of this nature are still waiting to be dealt with?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I will have to write to my noble friend; I do not have those figures in my pack. As I said, the CCRC has a target of completing case reviews in about 85% of cases within 12 months, which it is meeting in 10 months out of 12. I cannot answer my noble friend’s question with an exact figure, but I will write to her.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that the provisional proposals for reform of the tests and processes of the CCRC, indicated recently by the Law Commission, have a lot to commend them? No doubt the Government will say that we should wait for the Law Commission’s final report next year, but meanwhile has any assessment been made of the implications of likely reforms for applications that have previously been rejected by the review commission, which may well require reconsideration? Has any assessment been made of the implications for the workload of the Court of Appeal?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a number of very important questions, which will, of course, be answered by the interim chair when that name is announced. The workload of the Court of Appeal is an important factor in this, and the tests for how those cases are referred up to the Court of Appeal are important as well. As I said earlier, the answer to the question lies in both the Law Commission report and the work of the new interim chair.

Ex-offenders: Reintegration

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Lichfield]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they are providing for ex-offenders to support their transition from life in prison and their reintegration into society.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, effective resettlement of prison leavers is crucial to reduce reoffending. This includes making sure that someone has a home, family links where appropriate, access to healthcare, a job or education, and timely access to benefits where needed. We have committed to ensuring that pre-release plans are in place for prison leavers to ensure that needs are identified and addressed appropriately. Community probation practitioners co-ordinate individual rehabilitation, supported by pre-release teams, ensuring that they receive appropriate provision through prison-based and commissioned rehabilitative services.

[The Lord Bishop of Lichfield]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Although most prisoners will of course be looking forward to their release, there will be those also for whom release will be difficult or even traumatic, particularly some of those who have served many years in prison and who may miss the settled routines of life inside. What work are His Majesty’s Government doing to help such ex-offenders strengthen their sense of belonging, meaning and identity following release?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. It is a very profound one, because of course some prisoners do get institutionalised when they have served lengthy prison sentences. The answer to the question is putting in place accommodation, something for the prisoners to do with their time when they are released—either education or employment—and, where appropriate, encouraging ongoing family ties. That combination of support needs to be provided by the Probation Service, which I believe is the best way of encouraging long-term prisoners not to reoffend when they are released.

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

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problems highlighted by the right reverend Prelate’s Question are compounded by the prison overcrowding crisis? The need to use whatever space is available on the estate, wherever it may be, hampers access to suitable training courses, disrupts family and community ties, of which the noble Lord spoke, and makes it harder to prepare prisoners for release.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with the noble Lord’s point, which is why my right honourable friend Shabana Mahmood made the announcement yesterday in which the Government committed to building three new prisons. Those had been announced by the previous Government, but yesterday money was committed to expedite those prisons. It is not because we want to fill those prisons up; it is because prisons need to be run at less than 100% capacity to enable all the rehabilitative activities that can be undertaken in prison to operate to reduce the chances of reoffending. So I agree with the point which the noble Lord made.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on raising this issue, which is immensely important, much neglected and central to Christian teaching—an innovation from those Benches. I also congratulate the Government on appointing a Minister who has direct expertise in and commitment to this subject as Prisons Minister. I have looked back and I cannot find any occasion when this House or its committees have produced a study of training, rehabilitation and support for prisoners. Would the Minister welcome such a report, should your Lordships’ House decide to ask one of its committees to look into the issue?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I would welcome that. There have been numerous attempts to try to tie up the elements of what happens to prisoners as they leave prison. In the previous Government, there was a Through the Gate initiative, which tried to do the same thing. The current Government are trying to overcome this problem. It is very difficult; it is a resource-intensive thing to co-ordinate all the services to try to reduce the reoffending of prisoners. But it is worth pointing out that, when one looks at averages, there has been a slight reduction in the amount of reoffending over the last 20 years or so, which is encouraging. Nevertheless, it is a substantial problem and, although it is not for me to say, if the House were to want to look at this matter, I would welcome that.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I recently had a chance to visit Belmarsh as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee. Talking to some of the prisoners there, their plea was that they wanted training so as to have skills to take into the outside world. Does the Minister agree, and would he indicate that there is any way forward with our difficulties in achieving that?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, of course I agree with my noble friend. I, too, have visited Belmarsh and I agree with the point he makes about training. In fact, my noble friend Lord Timpson, who has, of course, great experience in these matters, has in his previous business life set up training facilities in prisons. One of the points that my noble friend makes is that now there are many other providers of training within prisons, and what we need is the capacity within our prison system to take advantage of those training opportunities.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. I worked for more than 20 years advising the Sikh prison chaplaincy. The Sikh chaplaincy requires Sikh chaplains to liaise with prisoners about to be released and their home community and gurdwara to help find the prisoner work and accommodation on release. It works well, and the chaplain-general has commended the Sikh initiative, which has also been a subject of comment in the Times. Does the Minister agree that, if this initiative were extended to the work of other faiths, it would really help the prisoners and there would be a considerable fall in reoffending?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise the point that the noble Lord makes about the importance of the chaplaincy. My understanding of the chaplaincy is that it is multifaith. There are Sikh chaplains, if that is the right expression, but there are chaplains from other faiths as well and they work together, in my understanding, to try to enable resettlement. I know through personal experience some Christian ministers who work in chaplaincies who also facilitate reconnection with communities to try to help resettlement. So I absolutely agree with the point the noble Lord makes and thoroughly commend the work of the chaplaincy.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I ask the Minister about progress on de-bunching prisoner releases on Friday. He will be aware that prisoners who are due for release on Saturday or Sunday are released on a Friday, so three-sevenths of all releases happen under the shadow of the weekend. All parties agree that this is an unsatisfactory way of reintegrating people. Could we please find a way to let the House know exactly what is happening and what progress is being made to resolve this problem?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for asking that question. I am very aware of this issue. I was under the impression that the practice of releasing on Fridays had been substantially reduced. However, if that is not the case, I will write to him, but I understand the point he is making. I thought there had been provisions made in recent legislation to stop this.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Probation Service is an important link in this chain, so could the Minister please update your Lordships’ House on progress on recruiting the many more additional probation officers that we need in order to handle the workload and the important job that they do?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I absolutely understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is making. Last year, the Government recruited 1,000 new probation officers; in the current year, we aim to recruit 1,300 officers and my understanding is that we are on target to achieve that. Of course, it takes two or three years to train probation officers so that they can get the relevant experience and confidence, and that process is ongoing. We absolutely want to revitalise the Probation Service. That is absolutely central to our ambitions for greater use of community sentences in future.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the most recent Probation Service data showed that around 40% of homeless ex-prisoners reoffend within a year, compared with 19% of those with stable housing. Can the Minister please explain, first, what data-driven adjustments are being made to improve outcomes for ex-prisoners, and, secondly, how the Government intend to track the success of reintegration programmes and collate the data?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks an important question and the answer lies in housing and accommodation. At the moment, there are three tiers of possible housing options available to prisoners. Community accommodation services are in either tier 1, 2 or 3. The key to resolving the issue is to get prisoners into one of those tiers of accommodation and then moving out of it as appropriate and, in the case of the third tier, after 12 weeks. Of course, moving out into settled accommodation requires the availability of that accommodation, and that availability varies across the country. Many other parts of society are competing for that accommodation. So we are very aware of the point that the noble Lord has made and the Government are doing their best to address restrictions on the housing that will support offenders when they leave prison.

Uncollected Financial Penalties

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is essential that financial penalties are collected and enforced. His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service uses robust methods to do so, including taking money from an offender’s benefits or salary and seizing and selling goods. Offenders can be sent to prison for non-payment to the court. In 2023-24, HMCTS collected over £671 million in financial penalties. The Government are investing in the replacement of outdated IT systems and are also planning legislative changes which will reform the confiscation order regime.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, but in March 2024 there were £4.4 billion-worth of unpaid criminal court fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges, et cetera. Does the Minister agree that steps should be taken urgently to deal with this unacceptable situation, which is grossly unfair on those who pay up and feeds scepticism in the judiciary and society at large about the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that supplementary question. Of the £4.4 billion that she referred to, £2.7 billion is from confiscation orders. Of the £2.7 billion, £1.2 billion is purely interest—interest is paid at 8% on the confiscation order amount. There are legislative changes in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in the other place, but I think it is worth pointing out to my noble friend that, in existing legislation, there are only very limited circumstances where a Crown Court can judicially cancel an order, and it contains no powers to administratively cancel a confiscation order. That means that the confiscation order amount accrues over the years, including the interest. With respect to financial penalties, by which I mean fines, the picture is very different. Over a five-year period, 80% of all fines are collected, and that figure has remained flat over the last few years. While I accept that the overall number is increasing, that gives an unfair picture of the current situation, and the Government are addressing the reasons why that is an unfair reflection of the position.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, it has always been a challenge to collect fines, because they are often imposed on people who cannot pay them. One of the areas in which progress can be made is criminal assets. This is usually around organised crime, which is motivated by profit. What I think the enforcement agencies have not invested in—and I invite the Minister to inquire—is having forensic accountants, who are people who can trace assets in often complex financial arrangements. At one stage, the NCA had one, as did Police Scotland. Can the Minister find out, or tell us, how many forensic accountants there are? People may not know, but the police can keep half of the cash they seize and 15% of other assets that are confiscated—not for themselves—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is worth saying that, if somebody fails to pay a fine and they are imprisoned for that failure to pay, then the fine is written off. However, if somebody fails to pay a confiscation order and they are sent to prison, the compensation order amount is not written off. They are different. The other point worth making goes to the point that he made about the work of forensic accountants. A lot of the assets which confiscation orders are applied to are hidden assets, so there is an estimate—an informed guess, if I can put it like that—of the amount when making that confiscation order. Nevertheless, I take the point that he makes in his question. If I can add anything on the number of forensic accountants available to give advice to the court, I will write to him.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that embassies across London owe a total of nearly £150 million in unpaid fines and charges? Obviously, under the Vienna convention, embassies are exempt from taxes but not from these fines and charges. What will the Government do about it?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

What the Government will do is write to the noble Lord. After much time in this House, I know that this issue comes up very regularly. If there was a simple answer to that question, I am sure it would have been found. Nevertheless, it is a real issue. It undermines confidence in the parking fines system, and it undermines confidence within the wider community if certain groups are not paying their fines. It is a serious issue, and I understand that. If there is more I can say, I will write to the noble Lord.

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

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, many financial penalties go uncollected. Does the noble Lord agree that we are, in respect of such offenders, imposing far too many financial penalties? Should we not be making more use of community service and the probation services in those cases where there is no hope of collecting payment?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

It is an interesting question—one which I used to grapple with regularly when I sat as a magistrate in Westminster. The noble Lord is asking that the sentencer increase the sentence from a fine to a community order, increasing the sentence for certain people who are unable to pay their fines. It may be that this is taken into account when sentencers make that judgement, but it is an inflationary—if I could use that word—solution to a problem. Nevertheless, of course, when sentencers impose fines, they have to take into account the means of those whom they sentence.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, there is £5 billion-worth of bitcoin cryptocurrency in government accounts seized from organised crime relating to Jian Wen. Please allow me to repeat that: £5 billion that is in the Government's bank account. I ask a similar question to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, posed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer four months ago: what are the Government’s plans for this windfall?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to that question. If the £5 billion is in the Government’s accounts, I do not know how free they are to use that money. If there is anything more I can add to that answer, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, when my noble friend writes to the noble Lord opposite about unpaid parking fines by embassies in London, would he also write to me and include in my letter the details of unpaid congestion charges by embassies in London? That is an amount that has escalated almost out of sight. As the noble Lord opposite has said, this is not a tax; it is a payment for services provided in London.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, if I am able to find those figures, I will indeed write to my noble friend.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, since 2018 only seven unexplained wealth orders were issued, and not a single penny of wealth has been recovered since 2019. This seems to undermine the Government’s offensive against unexplained wealth’s illicit financial flows. Can the Minister explain whether anything has changed since the Criminal Finances Act was introduced in 2017?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The figures he quoted reflect how difficult it is to track down the money when criminals are hiding it. It takes hugely intensive work, and it is something I have personally received presentations on. The issue is one of resourcing to a certain extent, but there is no lack of will to pursue criminals who have unexplained wealth. They need to be tracked down and charged as appropriate.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to provide an update on the territorial extent of the Bill. The focus of the Bill is on clarifying personal property law, which is devolved to Northern Ireland. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the Northern Ireland Assembly has granted consent for the Bill’s extension to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this Bill, which colleagues will know has undergone extensive scrutiny by the Special Public Bill Committee since its introduction in September. The Bill underscores our commitment to fostering innovation, both now and in the future. It supports our efforts to ensure that the jurisdictions of England and Wales, and of Northern Ireland, remain at the forefront of jurisdictions globally, providing a flexible legal framework for digital assets that can react to their dynamic nature and to technologies not yet imagined or created. By modernising the law of personal property, it will enable more efficient dispute resolution by removing the need for courts to discuss questions around categorisation. It will also attract international businesses to use these jurisdictions and promote economic growth.

I take this opportunity to thank those who have engaged with and supported the passage of the Bill, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who chaired the Special Public Bill Committee. He expertly led us through some very nuanced and technical issues, and I also thank the committee’s clerk, Matthew Burton. That leads me on to thanking the other members of the committee, the noble Lords, Lord Bassam, Lord Cryer, Lord Shamash, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Holmes, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and, last but not least, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am certain that each has found the process as fascinating as I have, and I enjoyed playing a part in ensuring that our law continues to be fit for purpose in an increasingly technological world.

I give particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who raised many interesting areas for the committee to consider and helped to ensure that the Bill passes through the House of Lords in its best possible form. I must also thank the Law Commission, which undertook two extensive consultations as part of its project on digital assets. In particular, I thank Laura Burgoyne and Chris Long, who did an excellent review that helped the Government make a fully informed decision to take the Bill forward. I also thank my private office—Melissa Leonard—and the Bill team: Bill manager Harry McNeill-Adams, Susannah Keogh, Alicia Love and Jonathan Fear. I am hugely grateful to all those who contributed to the evidence collected by the committee, both written and verbal, and ensured that the committee could fully assess the Bill and that the best possible version of it is going to the other place.

The result of these efforts is a simple but elegant Bill. It will support our efforts to remain a pre-eminent jurisdiction, with English and Welsh law and Northern Irish law being the global law of choice. It will signal that the UK is a leader in innovation and technology. It is important that the Bill passes into law as quickly as possible, so we can capitalise on this. We pass this Bill on in excellent condition, and I hope that it can complete its passage and become law as swiftly as possible. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who is not in his place but currently on the Woolsack, said on Report, the two clauses of this Bill fully reflect neither the nearly 1,000 pages of learning that the Law Commission produced on the subject of digital assets, nor the almost equal volume of written and oral evidence received by the Special Public Bill Committee, variously approving the Law Commission’s approach and characterising the Bill as pointless or even dangerous. That the Committee, which I chaired, was able to consider these issues and debate them out with a degree of thoroughness in the Moses Room prior to a further debate, largely thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on Report, is a tribute to our clerk, Matthew Burton, and all members of the committee—including not least the Minister—whose collective expertise was remarkable.

My only remaining concern is that, since the committee was entirely lacking in female members, it is entirely possible that we have succeeded in missing something obvious. The work of this House is now complete. I was delighted to hear just now that the Bill has been endorsed in Northern Ireland, and I wish it well on its onward journey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this was indeed a fascinating Committee in which to participate. I have no doubt that this effectively one-clause Bill will make an important contribution to the development of the law in a fast-developing field and assist judges and litigants in ensuring that necessary protection is given to activities and things in the digital sphere—including those as yet unimagined—which might otherwise fail to be protected. It is important for fintech, as we have heard, and it is very important for the City of London in retaining its place in the financial world in which we live.

The evidence we heard from interested parties, not just lawyers, raised a body of issues which took some digesting, and my noble friend Lord Holmes raised important questions. However, under the clear and thoughtful guidance of our distinguished chair, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, we found, with little disagreement, that—apart from a small change to the Bill’s title—we should leave it well alone. The Law Commission is to be congratulated on its hard work and on reducing a vast body of material to this very crisp Bill. We found it small but perfectly formed.

In all this process, we had the inestimable help of the committee clerk, Matthew Burton, to whom I am most grateful, not least for his excellent summary of the evidence and issues to help our final deliberations. It is with no hesitation that we on this side commend this Bill and hope it will be passed swiftly.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Bill has the support of all noble Lords who have spoken. I note that three Whips are sitting in my presence, and I am sure they will have heard the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on the lack of female members of the committee and will see whether we can do better next time. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his questions, as I am unable to answer them right now. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked about the schedule. I also cannot answer that question, but I suspect it will go down very soon. If there is any update, I will provide it to him.

I conclude in the spirit of agreement and endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that this is a small but perfectly formed Bill, but it will have one hell of an impact. We want to make sure that it makes the best possible impact. I beg to move.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is essential that the public have confidence in the CCRC and its ability to investigate potential miscarriages of justice fairly and impartially. An interim chair is being appointed and the Lord Chancellor will ask them to conduct a review of the operation of the organisation. As part of its current review of criminal appeals, the Law Commission will be reporting on the role and function of the CCRC. The Government will carefully consider any recommendations put forward.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share the view of the chief executive of the CCRC, given to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee last week, that she thought it appropriate to come into the office only one or two days every couple of months? Does he agree that the CCRC needs real leadership? It needs an executive chairman with legal standing, full-time salaried commissioners, and higher quality and better paid caseworkers, and it needs to get rid of the predictive test for referring cases to the Court of Appeal. The CCRC is vital to the justice system of this country. It is in a state of complete collapse and it needs gripping by this Government.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

As I said in my first Answer to the noble and learned Lord, the intention is to appoint an interim chair who will conduct a review of the way the CCRC is working, and that will be done in collaboration with the ongoing review by the Law Commission. I listened to the evidence that was given to the Select Committee last week. Clearly, how it chooses to conduct its affairs is a matter for the CCRC itself. A new interim chair is to be appointed, probably for a period of about 18 months; that, together with the Law Commission review, may result in changes at the CCRC.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the CCRC is about people’s lives. There are currently 20 cases before it for the Post Office Capture victims—this was the system before Horizon. The last Government agreed to overturn the convictions of Horizon victims. On Capture, this Government have referred victims to the CCRC. Many of these are elderly people—these cases go back to the early 1990s. What more can be done to speed this up, because some of these people are going to die before they get justice?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The Ministry of Justice has increased the CCRC’s budget year on year since 2020-21. The budget for 2025-26 has been set at £10.1 million, which is an increase of 38% since 2021-22. We recognise the need for increased resource, a recommendation made by the report to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put his name. That report made other recommendations, which will be taken into account in the review that will be undertaken.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, someone who works for me may have been unjustly sent to prison well over 10 years ago. Is it not time that the entire commission is set aside and new people appointed, with everything done as a matter of some urgency?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness is right to say that there is concern with the CCRC. The Lord Chancellor has recognised that and has put in place the framework, if I can put it like that, to consider change, which may be radical change—we wait to see. There certainly are concerns with the operation of that body.

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

My Lords, Andrew Malkinson served 17 years for a rape he did not commit. The CCRC is supposed to be the last hope for victims of miscarriages of justice; a safety net to ensure that wrongful convictions are examined with diligence. An independent review demonstrated that the CCRC carelessly missed several opportunities to overturn that conviction. In her recent evidence to the Commons Justice Committee, the chief executive demonstrated a complete lack of the required diligence. Is it not now time for her to go and to be replaced, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, suggested, by a full-time, executive, highly qualified chair?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise the point that the noble Lord made about Andrew Malkinson, who suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice. I understand there has been an interim payment made to him and that it is currently under consideration what the final award will be. My understanding is that the CCRC commissioned its own separate independent review into its handling of Malkinson’s issue and the applications, led by Chris Henley KC. The review, published in July 2024, set out multiple organisational and individual failings leading to that miscarriage of justice. That forms part of the overall review to which I have referred in earlier answers.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the sixth recommendation—recommendation F—of Chris Henley’s report of July of last year, what steps is the commission taking in particular to track and revisit unsuccessful forensic inquiries, including tests which do not produce profiles or produce only partial and incomplete profiles, which produce complete profiles that do not produce a match, or which produce developments in areas other than DNA? Is the commission now acting on advice from the national DNA database? I appreciate these are detailed questions. If the Minister cannot answer today, will he please write to me and place a copy in the Library?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. I think I am right in saying that there has been additional money put into the forensic side of the work done by the CCRC. If there is additional information which I need to impart to the House or to the noble Lord, I will put that in a letter.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is widely agreed that the CCRC has been failing, not just for a year but for decades. The Malkinson case demonstrated that, as he was rejected in 2009 and rejected in 2018. Is it not right that the first step to do something about the CCRC was taken by the Lord Chancellor, in forcing out the chair who failed to acknowledge the problems of the CCRC? My second question is this. There are urgent cases, as my noble friend has referred to. It is not just that case but, for example, the Lucy Letby case. What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that, while the review is going on, the public can have confidence in their dealing with those sorts of cases?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble and learned friend. It was of course an independent board which was appointed by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor. She acted on the advice of the independent board, and the chair of that organisation stepped down. My noble and learned friend asked about the Lucy Letby case. That is a case which I understand is under active consideration, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 13 and 20 March be approved.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 May.

Motions agreed.

Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, this draft instrument amends the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation, set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, by applying an inflationary uplift to the tariff values. In doing so, this amendment gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024, following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the Government will ensure that claimants can continue to receive proportionate compensation until the next review in 2027. These amendments were debated and approved in the other place on 2 April. I also remind the Grand Committee that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn this SI to the attention of the House.

The whiplash reform programme changed the way claimants are awarded damages for low-value whiplash injuries following from road traffic accidents. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient, proportionate and reliable system for both claimants and defendants involved in road traffic accident-related whiplash claims. At their core, the measures aimed to reduce the number and costs of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via reduced motor insurance premiums.

Elements of the reform programme were delivered through the Civil Liability Act 2018, which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process. Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury and banned the settling of such claims without medical evidence, the 2018 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff for damages for road traffic accident-related whiplash injuries lasting up to two years. The 2018 Act measures were supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000, and the introduction of a new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accidents. At the same time, the insurance industry-owned and developed Official Injury Claim portal was launched to assist claimants affected by the reforms.

The first whiplash tariff was set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021—which I will refer to as the 2021 regulations—which came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations, and thereby the whiplash tariff, within three years of its implementation, and within every three years thereafter. In fulfilment of this statutory obligation, the first review of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22 May 2024, and the Lord Chancellor published her report of the statutory review on 21 November 2024.

On reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the structure and component parts of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts be uprated to account for CPI inflation between 2021 and 2024, and to incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2021 regulations were necessary. In reaching her conclusions and recommendations, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data, as well as information from a Ministry of Justice call for evidence, which ran from 6 February to 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review, this statutory instrument increases the whiplash tariff damages values and, subject to approval by both Houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident-related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31 May 2025.

I hope noble Lords will find it helpful if I provide some additional explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background, I should say that the whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury duration, up to a maximum of two years. The payments in the original whiplash tariff set in 2021 range from £240, for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less, to £4,215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. There is a separate, slightly higher tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury, such as low-level travel anxiety, is incurred at the same time as the whiplash injury. Claims for whiplash injuries that last longer than two years fall outside of the fixed tariff.

When the tariff was first implemented in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year “buffer”, which was designed to account for expected inflation according to available forecasts at the time and to ensure that claimants were not undercompensated in the years between the tariff’s implementation and the first statutory review. In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognised the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts. Inflation over the first three-year period ran at a higher-than-expected rate and, as most respondents to the 2024 call for evidence noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In the light of this, she concluded that the tariff should be uprated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024 and should again include a buffer to account for expected inflation until the next review in 2027. Therefore, the whiplash tariff will be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025.

As I have already mentioned, this increase has been calculated using the consumer prices index inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data and evidence, the Lord Chancellor determined that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for uprating the tariff amounts by inflation. It is also worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across government, as recommended by the Office for National Statistics. In contrast, she considered that the alternative retail price index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation.

In accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided that the whiplash tariff should continue to be future-proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 to 2027. This approach is consistent with the method used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff was set in 2021. Although this three-year buffer could lead to some overcompensation in the short term, not implementing it would allow the real value of claimants’ damages to decrease and would risk significant under- compensation in the long term. Therefore, this buffer protects access to justice and minimises the risk of claimants being undercompensated in the years leading up to 2027.

As noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the call for evidence showed opposition to the buffer in its present form. Of the 32 respondents, 29 opposed the use of the three-year buffer, but, crucially, their reasons for doing so were different and, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, unconvincing. Some respondents suggested that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available and potentially undermine cost savings. However, the difference in tariff levels using the buffer is not substantial enough to impact significantly on savings. The tariff amounts are being adjusted only to account for inflation; as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real-terms increase in claim values.

Conversely, I am aware that other stakeholders preferred that the whiplash tariff should be either subject to an annual review or index-linked to inflation to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. A three-year review period, as anticipated in the 2018 Act, strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants and maintaining a stable system that is as simple to understand and administer as possible.

It is worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event. Therefore, while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time at which to hold such reviews. Other than uprating the whiplash tariff to account for actual and expected inflation, as I have explained, no other amendments to the 2021 regulations are made by this instrument.

In accordance with her statutory obligation, the Lord Chancellor consulted the Lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to uprate the whiplash tariff. He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further derogation from the principle that damages are assessed and awarded by the courts. As noble Lords have seen, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by the 2018 Act, this instrument adjusts only the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

I believe that the amendments that this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to uprating the whiplash tariff ahead of the next review in 2027. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument. Its central point is to update the 2021 level of damages, having regard to inflation. We welcome that update, and I say at the outset that we have no objection to the use of the consumer prices index for the uprating, nor do we suggest that three years is an unacceptable review period. We welcome the buffer for future-proofing, as the Minister described it. That will take us to 2027, which will follow a further review.

I am bound to say in passing that I hope the Minister is right that the higher rate of inflation that we experienced recently is a one-off event and not likely to be repeated. His economic forecasting may be better than mine, but I note that it is shared by the Lord Chancellor, who is venturing into unexpected fields —so be it.

However, I continue to have the doubts that I expressed in 2018, when what is now the Civil Liability Act was being considered. For my part, I am not convinced of the merits of a tariff for damages for whiplash injuries, particularly at the higher end of the scale for such injuries. Whiplash injuries—even minor ones, and, in particular, those with psychological consequences—cover quite a range. The sums, which approach £5,000 at the higher end of the scale, for the 18 to 24-month duration injuries, represent a considerable sum of money for many claimants, who may feel short-changed by the fact that there is no discretion applied to the award of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in their case. I still suspect that we would be better served by enhanced scope for greater judicial discretion by district judges and, in some cases, circuit judges, assisted by Judicial College guidelines, so that claimants would feel that they had had individual attention, rather than by the rigid application of a tariff. Those were the points that I and my colleagues made in 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister outlined, these regulations follow the Government’s statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021. The proposed amendments would increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 from 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. This increase is intended, as we have heard, to reflect inflation since the original tariffs were introduced. It includes a forecasted buffer to cover inflation over the next three years.

The whiplash tariff system introduced by the previous Conservative Administration was aimed at reducing the number and cost of minor injury claims and lowering motor insurance premiums. It introduced fixed compensation levels for whiplash injuries sustained in road traffic accidents and moved away from case-by-case judicial assessment. The structure of the tariff is not altered by this instrument; what changes is the monetary value assigned to each tariff band. The uplift of 15% is designed to reflect inflation since 2021; it includes a buffer to account for expected inflation until the next statutory review, scheduled for 2027.

In principle, we support this change. It is reasonable that compensation should keep pace with the cost of living. We also welcome the Ministry of Justice’s stated intention to work with MedCo to improve the quality and consistency of medical reporting. Reliable, clear medical evidence is essential to the fair operation of this system, but we have some questions and concerns.

This instrument introduces a significant and untested change in how compensation levels are set. Rather than updating tariff figures in legislation, as had been the practice, this uplift includes a forward-looking inflation buffer based on economic forecasts. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, this is without precedent: no other statutory compensation scheme relies on forecasted inflation in this way. Forecasts, as we know, are often subject to revision and uncertainty. There is a real risk that this buffer may underestimate actual inflation, leaving claimants undercompensated over time. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on this point. What assurances can be given that the inflation buffer will be accurate and what mechanism will be in place to ensure that claimants are not short-changed if those forecasts prove incorrect?

In addition, we are concerned about how the Government have represented feedback from their public consultation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made it clear that over 90% of respondents opposed the buffer model. That is not a mixed view, even if the reasons given differed; it is, in fact, an overwhelmingly critical view.

We also note continuing concerns raised by third parties. The Motor Accident Solicitors Society, for example, said that the tariff system and the official injury claims portal have damaged access to justice, particularly for those unfamiliar with legal processes or without representation. It also argues that the original tariff amounts were too low—significantly lower than those typically awarded under Judicial College guidelines for comparable injuries outside a motor vehicle context. While this instrument focuses narrowly on adjusting tariff levels, it is part of a much wider macro-reform framework that remains highly contentious.

In conclusion, we support the uplift proposal in this instrument; ensuring that compensation keeps pace with inflation is necessary and fair. However, this policy cannot be left to run on autopilot. It must be subject to scrutiny, accountability and, where necessary, reform. We will support this instrument today, but we will continue to monitor closely whether the whiplash reforms are delivering on their promises of fairness, accessibility and justice.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support for the measures in this statutory instrument. On the points which noble Lords have made, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said he supported it, but he repeated his reservations, which he originally articulated in 2018. Just for the record, there is some judicial discretion. All tariff awards can be increased by up to 20% by the court in exceptional circumstances, so I take the noble Lord’s point but there is some judicial discretion in the level of the awards. He asked how much money has been saved. I cannot give him an answer in a figure. However, HM Treasury laid a report on this in Parliament on 27 March 2025. The report details a summary of the information provided by insurers, which have concluded that policyholders benefited from a reduction in insurance costs through paying lower premiums over the period 2020 to 2023. As it is factual reporting of the information from insurers to the Treasury via the Financial Conduct Authority, the report does not represent the Government’s findings or conclusions. Separate to this report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I hope that last point goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We have no intention of running on autopilot, and all government policies are kept under review. It is certainly the intention in this case as well.

My noble friend Lord Jones was characteristically very generous in his assessment of the Government’s approach overall, so I thank him for that. Regarding the volume of claims in England and Wales, in 2022, there were 1,827, and in 2023 there were 9,335. I am afraid I do not have a breakdown of how much of that is in Wales alone. If I am able to get those figures, I will let him know. I also do not have a percentage for the likely fraudulent claims. Those numbers are not monitored as such because there are different types of fraud. Nevertheless, if there is any data that I can include in my letter to my noble friend, I will do so.

On the Explanatory Memorandum, the calls for evidence and the different views that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed to, more than 108,000 unrepresented claims have been created in the OIC portal since it since it was implemented. The proportion has increased from 9% in the first year to 12.7% as of 31 March 2025, so there is an increase in unrepresented claims, which we think is a good thing. In comparison, only 74 applications were made to the previous system by unrepresented claimants in 2021, so we think that the system is as a whole working well. Nevertheless, I do not want to give any hint of complacency. I undertake that we will continue to review the system and see that it continues to develop, as we hope it will.

Motion agreed.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, the draft instrument before us today makes a number of changes to ensure that legal aid continues to be available to those most in need and continues to serve some of the most vulnerable people in our society who need our support. It ensures that our legal aid legislation is aligned with wider government legislation on domestic abuse and immigration.

First, this draft instrument will make changes to enhance the scope of immigration legal aid. It will make legal aid available for those eligible to apply for settlement in the United Kingdom as a victim of domestic abuse under the Immigration Rules. This change will ensure that all eligible domestic abuse victims can access legal aid for applications under this immigration route.

Secondly, this draft instrument will amend the evidence requirements for domestic abuse victims applying for legal aid. It will do this by enabling victims to present evidence of abuse from appropriate medical practitioners overseas.

In addition, this draft instrument will make changes to terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial” abuse with “economic” abuse. This instrument will recognise that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as the victim’s child. These changes will ensure consistency with wider legislation.

Finally, this statutory instrument will make changes to complement instruments made in 2023 and 2024 in relation to the scope of legal aid for domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. If enacted, this instrument will ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these orders.

Before turning to the amendments in this instrument in detail, I will briefly set out how the legal aid scheme works. In general, civil legal aid is available to an individual if their issue is listed within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which I will henceforth refer to as LASPO. Then, in most cases, an individual must pass a means test, which is a check on their financial eligibility, and a merits test, which is a check to ensure the taxpayer is not funding entirely unmeritorious cases. In certain cases, most notably those involving victims of domestic abuse or child abuse, evidence requirements must also be satisfied.

I turn to each of the four topics covered in this order. First, amendments are made to the availability of immigration legal aid for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK. Currently, legal aid is available for some victims of domestic abuse who are eligible to apply for leave to remain in the UK under the Home Office Immigration Rules, subject to the means and merits test.

The Immigration Rules set out the rules for entering and remaining in the UK. The rules include the Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse, which I will henceforth call Appendix VDA. This concerns victims whose leave to remain in the UK was based on their partner’s or spouse’s immigration status and whose relationship has broken down as a result of domestic abuse. It is the route by which victims can apply for settlement in the UK, independent of their partner’s status, ensuring they can escape the abusive relationship without having to leave or be removed from the UK as a result. The eligibility requirements in Appendix VDA are amended from time to time.

This instrument amends LASPO to ensure that legal aid provision for victims applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK is aligned to the latest requirements set out in Appendix VDA. The changes will ensure that this alignment will continue in the event amendments are made to Appendix VDA in the future. This will mean that all victims of domestic abuse can access legal aid for advice to assist with an application for leave to enter or remain, under Appendix VDA, subject to means and merits tests.

Secondly, this instrument will make changes to the evidence requirements that victims of domestic abuse must satisfy in order to receive legal aid. Acceptable forms of evidence are set out in Schedule 1 to the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012. Currently, certain forms of overseas evidence are accepted as evidence of domestic abuse. For example, legal aid applications may include supporting documentation concerning an arrest or police caution abroad. However, evidence from overseas medical practitioners is not accepted. The Government wish to change the regulations to enable evidence from appropriate health professionals who are licensed and registered overseas to be accepted for legal aid applications. This will enhance the ability of victims to take action against perpetrators.

Thirdly, the statutory instrument will amend terminology in LASPO and associated regulations to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which I will henceforth call the DA Act. Since the introduction of the DA Act, terminology across government has moved away from “domestic violence” and towards “domestic abuse”, to explicitly recognise that perpetrators use more than just physical violence to harm an individual.

In its definition of domestic abuse, the DA Act describes such behaviour as including

“physical or sexual abuse … violent or threatening behaviour … controlling or coercive behaviour … economic abuse … psychological, emotional or other abuse”.

The inclusion of the term “economic” abuse in this definition—rather than “financial” abuse, as is currently used in LASPO—reflects a shift in recent years to explicitly acknowledge that abuse goes beyond interfering with money and finances to include economic resources more broadly, such as things that money can buy, examples of which include housing, possessions and clothing.

Further, the DA Act expressly states that domestic abuse of an individual includes behaviour and conduct directed at another person. For example, an abuser may direct behaviour towards a child in the household in order to facilitate or perpetuate the abuse of their partner. The definition of domestic violence in LASPO recognises that abuse extends beyond physical violence, and therefore implicitly includes abuse directed at third parties. However, by updating the LASPO terminology to align with the wording used in the DA Act, we aim to reduce the risk of victims perceiving that the abuse they are experiencing is out of scope for legal aid funding.

Finally, this instrument complements previous statutory instruments that made provision for bringing legal aid into scope for victims, third parties and those subject to domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. DAPOs and DAPNs, as they are known, are new orders that are now available in Greater Manchester, three London boroughs—namely, Bromley, Croydon and Sutton—and Cleveland. They are also available to the British Transport Police in those areas and will shortly be extended to north Wales. This instrument makes further changes to LASPO and the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013 to bring other aspects of the DA Act in relation to DAPOs and DAPNs in scope of civil or criminal legal aid. These changes help ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these instruments. These changes are technical and address unintended gaps in provision.

To conclude, the draft instrument before us will make legal aid available to society’s most vulnerable people, furthering this Government’s ambition to support victims of domestic abuse. I beg to move.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, time is of the essence, so I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his compassionate introduction. He has been so good as to indicate, unasked and informatively, where the pilot areas are. He mentioned my homeland, north Wales. I wonder whether he can be specific as to whereabouts in that lovely land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to the questions of my noble friend Lord Jones. I misspoke in my initial address to the Committee: the pilot areas are already under way in north Wales; they commenced on 28 April. The areas that are covered by these pilot areas in north Wales are the Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his geographic exactitude. When I think upon the names he mentioned, not much of north Wales is left out.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very glad my noble friend thinks that. It will be very interesting to see how these pilots develop.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support and agree with the points he made when he explained his support for this statutory instrument. He said that legal aid is a Cinderella service; I agree with that. He acknowledged that it was the coalition Government that introduced the LASPO Act, but neither the noble Lord, Lord Marks, nor the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, were anywhere near the scene of the crime of the LASPO Act. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the points he made when he was addressing that and the review of my noble friend Lord Bach. I know it very well and think it is fair to say that it is aspirational at this point because money is tight but, nevertheless, the aspirations behind it still stand.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked how victims are going to get the information when they are abroad and how overseas doctors will present the information in an appropriate format. I am not aware of any particular advice on that so, if there is something particular I need to say, I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I have experience of the appropriate formatting of medical letters; it is quite a complicated and important part of the whole procedure, so I thank the noble Lord for bringing that to the Committee’s attention. As I say, if appropriate, I will write to him on this. I thank the Committee for its support for this statutory instrument.

Motion agreed.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, traditionally, English common law has recognised two forms of property: tangible things in possession and intangible things in action, such as debts and shares. However, as we have heard, with the rise of digital assets such as crypto- currencies, tokens and non-fungible tokens we encounter items that do not fit neatly into either category. These assets are becoming essential in modern commerce, and it is vital that English law remain at the forefront of international trade, safeguarding London’s position as a legal and financial hub.

The Law Commission looked at this and proposed a third category of property to accommodate such digital innovations, allowing for legal evolution without imposing rigid definitions that might exclude future technologies. The commission emphasised that statutory intervention must not undermine the existing legal clarity or introduce unnecessary complications. The flexibility of English common law is a strength; it has already adapted to address key questions in the digital sphere. The current regime offers a balance of predictability and adaptability, making our jurisdiction well positioned to lead in this space.

The Bill the commission drafted, which is now before us, does just that. We have tested it thoroughly in Committee. I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, and while I recognise them, the Bill has been carefully drafted and it is not necessary to amend it—save for Amendment 6, which we will come to later.

Addressing Amendments 1 and 2 in a little more detail, it will be for the courts to develop the law on the treatment of this category or to widen existing categories—whichever way one wishes to look at it. The proposed wording of Amendment 1 goes too far. The Bill’s wording is elegant and encompasses digital assets, which are not easily categorised in the conventional classifications. It also encompasses other things not yet contemplated or in our imagination but which, when they do come into existence, will be thought by the courts to deserve rights. That is what the Bill is doing; it is expressly not limited by over-definition. It achieves protection for these as yet unimagined things, while making it clear that existing digital assets will be protected.

We would be bold to depart from the views of Professor Green, chair of the Law Commission report, who is very hostile to this sort of amendment. When asked about one such suggested amendment, she said:

“That would really take away the whole bite of the Bill … the whole mischief that it addresses is that we no longer have to be stuck with these categories”.


Therefore, we cannot support Amendments 1 and 2.

Turning to Amendment 3, on codes of practice, we follow the reasoning which I have outlined. Any code of practice risks definitions which do not accommodate a new type of activity or entity outside its scope, but which is worthy of protection. Equally, the code might suggest that property rights be given to an activity which, after the detailed investigation that a trial can give, a court rightly decides should not be so protected. It is best left to the courts, which will receive evidence, hear arguments from competing parties and be able to resolve those matters. The six-month period is too soon. If the Law Commission had thought this a good idea, it could have said so. It is contrary to the tenor of its lengthy report. If the Act would, in five years’ time or whenever, benefit from amendment, it should be done with the benefit of hindsight and experience. Meanwhile, such amendment is premature.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for raising these issues. They get to the heart of the Bill: whether there is a need to recognise a further category in statute, and whether it is helpful to provide further guidance to the courts on the attributes to consider.

On the first of these points, the Government’s firm view is that the Bill’s current approach is the right one. Some stakeholders hold to the two-category view and say that there can be no further category beyond things in action and things in possession. This view is understandable but has its roots in history, including in an influential statement in a 19th-century case. That statement was made at a time when assets such as crypto tokens simply could not have been conceived of. The world has moved on, and the law needs to move on with it.

The Special Public Bill Committee heard from stakeholders who would prefer to see these emerging assets categorised as things in action, on the basis that their approach would give more legal certainty. However, the need for new solutions is the result of the unique features of these assets and not of their categorisation. For example, the existing rules on transfer of things in action, or on remedies for interference in things in action, are simply not adequate for assets such as crypto tokens. Either way, the law, through the courts, will have to respond to their new features.

The Bill is the result of a three-year project by the Law Commission during which all arguments, including the arguments in favour of this amendment, were considered in full. A strong majority of consultees to both consultations undertaken by the commission expressed a preference for a further category. Most respondents to the committee’s call for evidence also supported this approach. This approach came from a wide range of stakeholders—from legal professionals to industry bodies and academics.

Another advantage of the Bill’s approach is that it is technologically neutral. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, excellently put it in Committee, the Bill

“encompasses other things not yet contemplated or in our imagination”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 16.]

The Bill future-proofs our law in the way the other two categories do not. As Professor Green put it in her evidence, as quoted by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sandhurst,

“the whole mischief that it addresses is that we no longer have to be stuck with these categories”.

By removing any uncertainty around a possible further category, we will give the courts the freedom to develop our common law. This approach allows them to consider and respond to the unique features of digital assets, and other assets that we cannot yet foresee.

This flexibility is also relevant to the question raised by Amendment 3: whether the Secretary of State should publish codes of practice about the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The Government’s view is that requiring the publication of codes of practice could undermine the flexibility that the current drafting affords the courts. The Law Commission considered the features of assets that have characteristics of property but do not fit into the existing categories. However, City law firms, senior barristers, financial industry groups and crypto industry groups gave clear feedback that a more detailed statutory provision incorporating these features could be counter- productive.

The Government are concerned that the same issues could stem from publishing a code of practice. It could create unhelpful boundary challenges, lead to undue complexity, and prevent the common law being able to respond flexibly and dynamically to new technologies and unforeseen challenges. This feedback was reflected in some of the written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee.

As noble Lords will remember, the Bill Committee was firmly in favour of maintaining the Bill’s current approach. My noble friend Lord Stansgate got to the heart of the matter when he said:

“The whole point of the Bill is to set out something relatively simple, to take into account new technology and to enable judges to develop common law”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 19.]


As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so eloquently put it:

“The relative silence of the current Bill is golden”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 20.]


The Bill deliberately does not try to define the types of assets that may fall within its scope. Rather, it unblocks the common law and leaves it to the courts to develop the appropriate principles, building on centuries of world-renowned common-law development. By doing this, English and Welsh and Northern Ireland law can remain dynamic, globally competitive and a useful tool for those in the digital asset market. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, an impact assessment is not practicable, whether in six months’ or three months’ time, we respectfully suggest. It would be premised on too many uncertainties. What we know is that the Bill will do no harm and is likely to do good. We have, if you like, the theoretical impact assessment of the Law Commission, which looked at all the issues in great detail. So, I suggest that we do not need this amendment, and we would not support it.

As to Amendment 5, six months’ time is, again, with respect, too short. I would suggest in parentheses that a review in five years’ time to see whether it is useful, whether it needs further amendment, how it is operating and what the effect is on the London market and litigation in London, could well be of value. Whether it needs a formal assessment or not is something that can be looked at four years down the road, but this is early days. We simply do not know enough. With respect to my noble friend, a review in a few months’ time will not help us at all. We do not support the amendment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, at the outset, I acknowledge the long-standing advocacy for technological innovation of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I also pay tribute to his deep commitment to ensuring that our regulatory framework is fit for purpose in an increasingly digital world.

These amendments would mandate reviews of the impact of digital assets being treated as property by virtue of the Bill’s provisions. One amendment requires the Government to publish an economic impact assessment of the Bill on the day the Act is passed. As noble Lords will know, the Government published an impact assessment when introducing the Bill. I hope it will assist and reassure noble Lords if I highlight some of the most salient points.

As the impact assessment sets out, the Bill is expected to bring clarity to personal property law, reduce uncertainty for businesses and ensure England, Wales and Northern Ireland remain leading locations in which to innovate. Due to limited data, it is very hard, if not impossible, to quantify these benefits. However, we think the Bill will help ensure our laws remain competitive on an international stage.

The impact assessment considered the potential for the Bill to encourage the use of digital assets. However, this impact is highly debateable, given the Bill merely confirms the position that has been gradually emerging through case law in recent years. It is not expected or intended that the Bill will cause a significant increase in uptake of digital assets.

The same amendment calls for the impact assessment to cover the estimated change in demand for, and use of, digital assets. The assessment would also have to cover data centre power usage, the current level of data centre power provision and its ability to meet any increase in demand for digital assets. This follows on from the points the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made in Committee. He mentioned that he would like to hear that the Government are committed to data centres being fuelled through renewable energy and a discussion around where data centres would be located, given the value they can bring to the country. Although these are important points, they sit outside the remit of the Bill.

I say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate that whether a data centre is in space or not is also outside the relevant part of the Bill.

Furthermore, it would likely be impossible to accurately estimate the long-term effect of the Bill on data centres. There are many greater influences on these areas, such as cloud computing, AI and general data storage. This will make it extremely difficult to assess the impact of the Bill. Therefore, such a review could result in speculative or misleading conclusions.

The other amendment calls for reviewing the

“need for further regulation of stablecoins and tokenised deposits”

within six months of the Act passing. Here, I reiterate that the Bill does not specify how the courts will treat these particular digital assets. If they were considered personal property under the Bill, this would not affect the need—or not—for regulation. The Bill deals only with a discrete matter of private law. Therefore, the proposed review is unlikely to yield any meaningful conclusions.

Moreover, issues around regulating stablecoins and tokenised deposits are already being addressed. The Government’s forthcoming financial services regulatory regime of crypto assets will include a new regulated activity for stablecoin issuance in the UK. Overseas-issued stablecoin will be regulated in the UK in line with other crypto assets. This will ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority can properly manage stablecoin-specific risks.

In addition, the Prudential Regulation Authority has published its views on the risks associated with tokenised deposits and how it expects banks to address those risks. Where tokenisation does not change the underlying economics and fundamental nature of a depositor’s claim, the PRA’s prudential regulatory framework will treat a tokenised deposit similarly to a traditional deposit. Where banks intend to take tokenised deposits from retail customers, the PRA expects this to be done in a way that meets the PRA’s rules for eligibility for depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

The Bill takes a minimalist approach to achieve the specific aim of unblocking the common law on personal property. While I am very pleased that I have had the opportunity to debate these amendments, the Government fear that they could cause unnecessary bureaucracy and regulatory duplication, which could increase uncertainty rather than alleviate it.

As set out already, we think there are significant benefits of the Bill, such as bringing clarity to English, Welsh and Northern Irish law and keeping it world leading. We will, of course, monitor those benefits closely in the future. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this brief debate and say, again, “Job done: mission accomplished”, on the record, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, we support this amendment, for the reasons advanced by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for all the hard work which he put in and to our excellent clerk, Matthew Burton. It is a pleasure now to see this Bill reach a happy conclusion, I hope.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to restate the Long Title of the Bill, and I have put my name to it as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said. The amendment was tabled by the noble Lord but was suggested by Adam Temple, a senior barrister who specialises in financial services, when he gave evidence. This amendment addresses a slight discrepancy between the wording in the Long Title and the Bill’s operative clause. This discrepancy in wording came about following the Law Commission consultation on the draft Bill, which led to Clause 1 being amended to address concerns that it could be read as providing that any thing was capable of being personal property. That is not the intended effect of the Bill. Therefore, the wording changed from saying that a thing may be capable of being an object of property rights to instead saying that a thing is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it does not fit into the traditional categories of things in possession or things in action.

At the time of drafting, the Law Commission did not feel it was necessary to make a corresponding change to the Long Title. However, several noble Lords raised concerns about this discrepancy during our Committee debate and asked the Government to consider it further. Having reflected carefully, we are satisfied that making this change will not have any substantive effect. We are therefore content to accept this amendment so that the Long Title is consistent with the operative clause of the Bill. I end by thanking the noble Lord for his constructive discussions on this point. As for thanking noble Lords, I will leave that to the last stage of the Bill.

Amendment 6 agreed.