Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is a grim subject, like, I am afraid, many of those that we are going to discuss in our proceedings today. An overwhelming case has been made by those who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I very much hope that the Front Benches—Government and Opposition—are listening to the views that have been expressed.

I shall offer one argument additional to those that the noble Baroness has set out. In addition to regulatory sanctions against the providers of these online services, and in addition to any possible criminal remedies that may arise, there is also the possibility of civil sanctions: claims for damages brought by groups of parents who have the misfortune to have had their children dealt with in this appalling way. Any such claim for damages would be immeasurably assisted were the providers of the online services to have a legal duty to risk-assess the likelihood of their services being used in this way.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I was also at the meeting, which has been referred to, that was held this lunchtime and dealt with the troubling question of what seems to be an epidemic of growth in the exploitation of children on the internet. I must say that it revealed figures that I was not aware of, and I regard myself as relatively well briefed on this matter.

Further information came out today—particularly from the work, which has already been alluded to, by Members who were present at that meeting—that much of the of the material that is seen online also moves across into the real world. The use of these elements on the internet to groom children, to set up meetings with them and then to participate with them in illegal acts has been growing to a point where it is quite clearly an epidemic that must be dealt with. We are at the start of something extraordinarily unpleasant that needs to be looked at in the round, in a way that we have not yet done or been able to do.

Having been heavily involved in the Online Safety Act, I am conscious of the fact that we are dealing with legislation which has been overtaken by technology. The developments that have happened since we the Bill became an Act have meant that the tools we thought were being given to Ofcom and being used by the Government are very often no longer appropriate. They are probably not as far-reaching and certainly do not deal with the speed with which this technology is moving forward.

I have not been able to attend any meetings which Ministers may have had with my own side on this, but I gather that there is a Whip on against this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could think hard about how he wants to play this issue out. It seems that one of the problems we have in dealing with legislation in this area is that we are never dealing with the right legislation. We want to amend the Online Safety Act but obviously, by moving an amendment to this Bill, which is from another department, we are not maximising the chances of having an output which will work. In addition, the way Ofcom is interpreting the Act seems to make it very difficult for it to reach out on new technologies, such as those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her excellent speech introducing the amendment.

In a moment of transition, when we are so keen to try to grasp things so that they do not get out of our control, there may be a case for further work to be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned that she was happy to try to look again at the wording of her amendment if it is not appropriate for the Government. I am conscious that the Government are also trying to move in other areas and that other departments are also issuing measures which may or may not bear directly on the issue. It seems that there is a very strong case—although I do not know how my noble friend will respond—for asking for this issue to be kept alive and brought back, perhaps at Third Reading, where a joint amendment might be brought between the noble Baroness and her supporters and the Government to try to make sure that we do what we can, even if it is not the complete picture, to take this another step down the road.

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

I will make a very small intervention because people have spoken so eloquently before me. I support the amendment 100% and I am surprised that the Front Benches are not taking a different view. For crying out loud, I am not easily shocked but the briefing that we have all spoken about that we went to this afternoon shocked me. We are so behind the curve on this and we have to get ahead of it, so I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for tabling this amendment. We are all familiar with regular updates on our smartphones that eat more and more of the memory and use up more and more of the battery. They happen systematically, usually for security reasons, very regularly and seamlessly. However, I was not aware, until the noble Lord tabled his amendment and we had some discussions and meetings around it, that the technology that we are talking about to intercede and stop our devices being able to access or use this sort of material already exists to some degree on our telephones. Who among us who has an iPhone, like me, knew that the software to prevent and screen child sexual abuse material already exists but can be activated only if you go into the parental controls and turn it on—at which point it then starts working? I had no idea that that was embedded in my phone.

The technology exists. The large manufacturers of these gadgets already have access to that technology. In some instances, they have already developed it to a very sophisticated level but, for all sorts of reasons, have chosen not to roll it out. One of the major arguments used against this sort of thing being rolled out is from the free speech brigade—one of whose protagonists I am glad to see is not in the Chamber today. They will always say that free speech trumps everything else. It is an unfortunate choice of verb, but that is the argument put forward.

But the reality is that the technology we are talking about works in such a way that in no way, shape or form does it prevent free speech. It does not in any way, shape or form intervene with those platforms which are encrypted. It operates separately to those platforms but works in such a way that, without revealing what is going on in those encrypted messages, it stops the sort of material that we are talking about actually getting involved in the first place. In my view, that is not exactly an interdiction of free speech.

For all these reasons, I ask the Government to look at this very carefully and closely. We are not dealing with some wonderful space age technology that has yet to be developed; we are talking about technology which already exists. There are individuals who have a huge amount of knowledge and experience in this area. It is probably a brilliant example of His Majesty’s Government pursuing one of their avowed aims, which is to work more closely with foreign jurisdictions together in this sort of area.

For all these reasons, I hope that the Government will give a positive response, and that we will not have, “Oh, it is very difficult”, or, even worse, that we will have a consultation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking on issues related to online safety, I seem to spend most of my time apologising for the fact that the Act is not as up-to-date, efficient or effective as it should be, but here is another example of where technology has overtaken the good work that we did all those years ago to try to bring forward that legislation.

I learned about this at the same meeting that has been referred to already. At first sight, it looks as though it is an answer to a lot of problems that we have with the way in which younger people in particular interact with the internet. Those of us who were involved in pursuing what is now the Online Safety Act will be aware that we were largely looking at the user end of the material and cycle, looking at the apps and their interactions, that were being generated by those who were involved in servicing the internet. We did not look at technology in the hardware side at all and had no real thought about anything that we were dealing with in the then Bill affecting it. Yet this seems a very interesting and easy-to-adopt technology that would solve a lot of problems in relation to issues about the spread of material, which we would think should not be available where there are things like age bars or other means of providing gaps in the access to it.

There are always going to be problems with how we manage the changeover between childhood and adulthood, and we are aware that the technology is moving fast on that as well. It may well be that what is current today may be out of date by the time this Bill becomes law. But the Government should look very closely at the way in which this technology operates to prevent, at the equipment level, access to material which should not be seen by children particularly.

There will, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said, be issues about free speech, and I do not think we should underestimate those. There are obviously ways in which this could be used against societal values; but for the particularity of how children are to be protected, making it impossible for them to access material, which they should by law not see, on the equipment they buy seems a very useful way forward, and I commend it to Ministers.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Let me say from the outset that, in principle, on these Benches we conditionally support Amendment 239A, which has been spoken to so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.

The noble Lord very clearly set out the urgent issues involved, as did my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and all of us who were there in the same meeting which we have referred to before. We are at a technological and moral crisis point, as we have debated in a previous group regarding child sexual abuse material online. We face a children’s mental health catastrophe, and the ubiquity of child sexual abuse material is a central driver of that catastrophe.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has explained that his amendment would mandate that manufacturers and importers of smartphones and tablets ensure their devices satisfy a CSAM requirement to prevent the creation, viewing, and sharing of such material.

The question, however, clearly arises as to whether this would undermine encryption or privacy. We recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in his revised Amendment 239A, does indeed include a duty of privacy in his regulations. In my view, the thing to avoid is the chance that a technological fix of this kind could involve some degree of surveillance. I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that, at first sight, the technology looks extremely promising, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, but, before taking this further, we need to be absolutely sure about the robustness of this technology and its impact on privacy.

By requiring software to be preloaded at the system level, we would move away from the model of parental controls and platform responsibility, and we would place the duty on the manufacturers who profit from these devices. Quite apart from that, we do, of course, also need to ensure that the platforms take action.

The Minister may promise further consultation, but we do not need much more consultation to know that the status quo is failing; we need to find a solution now rather than playing an endless game of digital catch-up. As other others have urged, I hope that the Government will take a look at this proposal urgently, closely and seriously.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

This law addresses a clear and urgent need. I record our collective gratitude to the specialist police officers who, in addition to their front-line duties, took time to bring this issue to our attention and provided advice and input throughout. I also thank 5Rights, the NSPCC, the IWF, the Telegraph, Sky News and the BBC. Pushing for change, even change that is so clearly needed, is the tireless work of many people. Our thanks are due to them as our hearts go out to those who have been victims.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the little exchange we have just had, which was most welcome, arose because it became clear in Committee that there were meetings of minds but not meetings of words in what had been presented there. I am pleased to join the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in congratulating the department, including the Minister and the Bill team, on listening to the House. When the House gets behind a theme or topic and expresses it across all sides, it is worth listening to what is being said and thinking again about what was originally proposed, so that what comes out in the end is for the good of all.

It is always a bit unnerving to be namechecked in somebody else’s speech, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for picking up the tech group, as she calls it, which has been following this and other Bills for the past five or six years. It has got together on many occasions to improve what we have seen before us, and I hope that the House recognises that. It is also important to recognise that when we speak as a House, we have a power that is worth engaging with, as we have shown on this occasion. I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that in his words at the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to congratulate the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on the amazing work she has done. Furthermore, I appeal to the Government and all the different departments that may be involved in bringing before Parliament any legislation that in any way, shape or form involves children. We have repeatedly had to deal with Bills that have arrived in this House where it is quite clear that the needs and vulnerabilities of children are not being recognised right from the beginning in the way the legislation is put together. We have to pull it apart in this House and put it back together, because it has not been thought of properly in the first place.

I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. We need to learn the lessons of the battles that we have had to fight in recent years with a variety of Bills—largely successfully, mainly thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We do not want to keep on repeating those battles. We need to learn and do better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill has had a lively and long previous life, with many of these areas having been debated over the years by noble Lords sitting here today. I would like to give a brief summary of some of the changes that have been made to the Bill, as well as reflecting on some of Bill’s core aims.

I start by giving thanks. I hope I will be forgiven for not naming every noble Lord who has spoken on this Bill to date. I extend my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Jones, who I am sure everyone here is delighted to have back. She laid excellent foundations in getting the Bill through its initial stages in the House. I am sure that noble Lords will want to join me in wishing my noble friend a swift and full recovery.

This has been my first experience leading on legislation in this House. I apologise for when I got things wrong. I have learned a great deal. I am grateful for both the support and the many shades of advice that I have been given.

On the deepfakes point, I join the many noble Lords who have expressed their admiration for the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. It is her first time bringing an issue of such great importance to a debate. She has done so with great skill, determination and passion. The Government have undoubtably heard your Lordships’ clear views on this crucial issue.

The other area of the Bill that has been strengthened today is on children’s data. We have put into law the children’s higher protection matters. I extend thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding.

The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raised excellent points about online harms research, and we had a robust discussion of automated decision-making thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Markham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose.

More broadly, many noble Lords contributed to the debates on AI and copyright, including the noble Lords, Lord Bassam, Lord Freyberg and Lord Holmes, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I agree that AI poses some of the most pressing questions of our time, and the strength of feeling on copyright is clear. I emphasise that we have heard this House. We are listening, including with our open consultation, and, as I have said several times, we are committed to making the right decision on this—and right means right for all parties.

We wholeheartedly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on the importance of scientific research and that scientific research is in the public interest, even though we still have some concerns on the formulation and unintended consequences of the specific amendment. I thank him for raising the debate and bringing different opinions to the table.

As my noble friend Lady Jones said at Second Reading, data is

“integral to almost every aspect of our society and economy, from NHS treatments and bank transactions to social interactions”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 146.]

I will use this final part of my speech to highlight some of the areas where there has been agreement across the House and which highlight some of the huge potential that data and the contents of the Bill can have on our lives.

We have new provisions for smart data schemes and new digital verification services to provide new ways for people to prove and verify identities. The maps provided by the creation of the national underground asset register will improve the efficiency and safety of the way we install, maintain, operate and repair our buried infrastructure. We have a new soft opt-in mechanism for charities, which will help them raise vital funds by allowing them to continue to reach out to supporters.

The contents of the Bill support delivery of every one of the five missions set out by the Prime Minister. I know that in the other place there will be further discussions on the Bill and on the changes that noble Lords have made. I am in no doubt that there will be further disagreements, but I am sure that Members will be grateful for the time and scrutiny afforded to the Bill. That will only make it a better Bill and will ultimately help it achieve its aims to harness the power of data, drive economic growth, support modern digital government and improve people’s lives.

Finally, I thank the officials who worked on the Bill, including the Bill team: Simon Weakley, Lois Clement, Ryan Jones, Robyn Connelly and Joy Aston.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Vallance’s words in relation to what we have been doing today and also taking a broader conspectus of what we have been doing in the longer periods of Committee and Report. I think he has answered the question I was going to leave him with, which was on whether the Government were in listening mode when the House took such determined decisions, as it has done on a number of issues, which I know he was opposed to. I hope that I am right in assuming that he is saying that he understands the motivation behind them, which is in no sense to try to wreck the Bill but, in the best interests of this House, to try to make sure that what comes out of it reflects the wider experience and range of views that can come from those who have knowledge and understanding of this Bill.

As he said, this is not the first data protection Bill we have—I was going to say “endured”, but that is not right—enjoyed, and we have been through a number of the issues that have surfaced again in the past few weeks at other times. As we heard in Committee—a number of people have said this and I think it is still true—this is really not the data protection and data processing Bill that we need. What we have is an attempt to try to bridge some of the infelicities that have occurred in recent years because of the combination of legislative processes that have happened within the GDPR, Brexit and the Data Protection Act 2018. That does not make it the Bill we could have had. I am not forecasting, but I suspect that we will probably have to return to this within a few years to try to bring forward some of the issues that are still buried in this, which do not come out quite as well as they could do, and I look forward to that.

The Minister was right to say that this is his first major piece of legislation. I think he has done extraordinarily well to be able to pick up the mantle and the first steps taken by my noble friend Lady Jones, who we welcome back. I also pay tribute to the Bill team, who have been exemplary in trying to provide the information we need to make the best decisions.

We will see the Bill back in due course. It will have, presumably, changes to some of the issues on creative copyright, scientific research and some other points that the noble Lord mentioned. I hope that, when that happens, we will have an opportunity to reflect on that together, and I make an open invitation to the Minister to engage with some of the people he has named already, whose clear interest in this has been flagged to him. I am sure they would want to try to continue the discussion before we go into the formal processes.

Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, who played such a strong part in this issue and others when we discussed the Online Safety Bill last year, as she said. I supported her then and support her on what she has said today. This is a pleasurable reunion of many who have the scars of the Online Safety Bill and join us today in this discussion. In the end, we had a very fulfilling experience, working together harmoniously across the House to get the best we could out of that Bill. I look forward to the contributions of others from that group.

We are today hearing a bit of the futurology that we experienced during the passage of the Online Safety Bill. We recognised that we would probably have to revisit the Bill, now an Act, on a regular basis—perhaps annually—because technology moves so fast and issues are moving into the limelight in a way that we perhaps did not anticipate at the time. Earlier speakers have raised all the points I wanted to make, and I support what they have said, but we need to think very carefully about how we progress on this. It is clear that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has thought through a very clear and concise way of approaching an egregious problem that has bubbled and exploded in our faces in recent months, but this may not be the best way forward, as she hinted. It might be better done within the Government’s purview—but that would be at the risk of time and we have heard enough today to recognise that time is of the essence in moving forward.

Drafting in this area is tricky. As we progress the Bill, it will be sensible to listen carefully to what we are hearing from the Government as they move forward. It may be possible to get the Bill into a form that it would be advantageous for the Government to accept, or it may not—time will tell. Whatever it is, we must not lose the essence of the argument we are hearing today: this is an egregious activity that must be stopped. There are three layers to it, which are picked up by the Bill. The way forward on this is to make sure that we identify clearly what the issues are and the outcomes we want, in a way that—as we have heard—will work for those who have to fulfil and implement the Bill, and that this is done in a timely manner, otherwise too much will be lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot elaborate further, because of the complexity of the situation that the noble Lord highlighted. We realise that it is difficult, and we need to get the law right. I do not want to say that we are taking our time, because this is an absolute government priority. We are in the process of identifying a suitable vehicle to address these issues in this Session of Parliament. The noble Lord makes a good point.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am still slightly confused about timing. I am sure the Minister understands the difficulty the House is in here. I think he said—and I would like him to repeat it, if this is the case—that the Government’s intention is to complete their considerations of the issues raised by this, and other matters related to it, within this current Session, rather than within this Parliament. The Session we are currently in is due to come to a close in a reasonably short time. Can he confirm that?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very happy to confirm the point that my noble friend has raised. In fact, in my briefing, the words “in this Session” are underlined—so, yes, that is indeed the case.

Libel and Defamation Cases: Cost to Public Funds

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the response from the Foreign Office was absolutely right. Legislation imposes proportionate sanctions where warranted, but restricting access to justice is something else. When it comes to payment of costs awarded against such people, I can say to the noble Lord from experience that there are ways in which such costs can be ordered and paid, but one has to be very careful in such circumstances not inadvertently to breach the sanctions regime.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem raised by this Question is the absence of an appropriate, independent alternative dispute resolution mechanism for those unfairly treated by the press? Do the Government have any plans to consider this?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the short answer is yes. I would disagree with noble Lord in only one respect; that is, when he calls it alternative dispute resolution. We should not see these forms of dispute resolution as being alternative in the sense of being somewhat outré or unusual. They should be absolutely at the forefront of our civil justice system, and indeed, we are making changes throughout our civil justice system to make sure that only cases that really cannot be resolved outside of court end up in court.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. I start by echoing the pleas of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for more attention to be paid to culture and media issues in these debates. I hope that the good points made already by many noble Lords around the House will be picked up by DCMS. I declare an interest as a member of the Communications and Digital Committee of your Lordships’ House. However, what follows are my thoughts on the online safety Bill, prefaced in the gracious Speech.

In Our Digital Future, published yesterday, the Labour Party made it clear that we want empowered citizens who do not merely have access to the internet but are equipped with the skills and tools to make the most of technology and who are protected from those who use it to cause harm. The online safety Bill shares these aspirations, and, in so doing, reverses the history of international internet technology governance, based as it is on a 1990s presumption that this would be best left to companies and technologies, which had little legal ability to govern the things that people did on the platforms.

Thankfully, democratic Governments have begun, at last, to appreciate the extent of the harms that arise for citizens and businesses due to a loosely governed internet and its patchy adherence to human rights. In that spirit, I welcome the draft online safety Bill. The Government have got a lot right, particularly the adoption of the duty-of-care approach, the focus on systemic measures and the roles to be played by Ofcom, the DMU and the ICO. However, there are some gaps and concerns which have been referenced already, including the very long lead time before the Bill will actually reach the statute book, democratic accountability and a worry that the Bill underplays the current dangers to children and vulnerable users.

However, the welcome pre-legislative scrutiny will help sort out these issues. I hope it will focus on the following points. The internet gives everyone a voice—a really important point—but the resulting cacophony can mean that minority voices are lost in their entirety. Forms of expression which in the past were tolerable, even if they offended, are amplified to the point where action may be required to moderate volume and identity. But that brings real threats to freedom of expression and to quality journalism. How can these tensions be resolved? What content should be treated as illegal and who decides what should be treated as illegal but harmful? If there are forms of activity that were lawful in the past but should now be made unlawful, surely Parliament needs to set these new laws, lead and give clarity. If platforms are to determine their community standards, what role should be played by the regulator—or regulators—and will it have the resources and the powers it needs across the piece?

Online platforms have a responsibility to protect users against fraudulent and scam content as well as other harms. The Bill needs to rise to the broader challenge to democracy posed by digital technology itself, and we will need systems of regulation that protect that. As the Bill recognises, the platforms are a big part of the solution to online harms. They hold the technical expertise, the resources and the access to clean up online spaces, but they do not have the legitimacy to make decisions about what constitutes a free society and they should not be asked to do so without appropriate democratic oversight by Parliament.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I am reliably informed, post haste, that such aggregates in clouds are not covered. If by any chance that is not true I will write to the noble Lord and make sure the letter is circulated to the House. I cannot see over my shoulder but I sincerely hope that the Box is currently nodding firmly.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I can inform the Minister that the Box looked absolutely transfixed by that recent exchange. I do not know who is more surprised, them or us, by the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to come to the white heat of the technological revolution and ask a question that has stumped us all. On this side of the House, we would venture to say that we think they are covered, but that just adds a little piquancy to the debate which will, I am sure, be resolved before we get too far down the line.

Following the Leveson trail is a bit like appearing in “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead”. We pop up at odd times as other events seem to be filling the spaces. We pay a small contribution to it and then we discover that the whole event has moved on, another Bill has appeared, and yet another set of amendments appears which look awfully like the ones we have just been discussing. Only earlier today, we knocked out one set of amendments, yesterday we could have done the same, today we hope they will stick. I want to reassure the Minister that we will be supporting him in this event and he will not need to use the wiles he displayed when he almost reached across the Dispatch Box to my noble friend Lady Hayter to try to persuade her not to push her vote. The vote was unsuccessful so he won out in the end anyway: he has all the luck.

As the Minister has explained, these amendments, inserted into the Bill late in the process, provide for new rules on exemplary damages and costs. They are an essential part of the cross-party agreement on a royal charter which is part of the new framework of independent self-regulation, guaranteed by law, as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson. This part of the Bill aims to provide publishers with incentives to sign up to the new system of self-regulation that should meet the criteria set out in the royal charter. Publishers that join a recognised regulator will receive protection from the award of exemplary damages in media disputes, the opportunity to use an arbitration service and cost benefits from having access to this service. That is one reason why it would benefit local as well as national newspapers. If a complainant chooses not to use the arbitration service, they can still be liable for costs even if they win.

Lord Justice Leveson’s report was mainly about the press but the original drafting of this Bill had the unintended effect of catching blogs. That said, Lord Justice Leveson did express the hope, in Recommendation 73 of his report, that online publishers would also join a regulator. The Bill therefore needs to be amended to ensure that exemplary damages did not apply to blogs and they could receive the benefits of joining a recognised regulator. In recognition of the fact that this is a complex area, your Lordships’ House agreed a placeholder amendment on 25 March. The Government’s decision to hold a mini consultation and pause for reflection to consider how the Bill should deal with the blogosphere was sensible and we agree with the policy objectives that the Government are seeking to address to exempt micro businesses from the definition of relevant publisher where they are a blog or where their publications are merely incidental to their other businesses and to enable such micro businesses to receive the benefits and cost incentives of joining a recognised regulator. The Minister has been helpful in setting out a number of accompanying thoughts around these points and the issues relating to what would and would not qualify, and I think they will bear further consideration once we see them written up in Hansard.

However, the main point is that the amendments we are now looking at and which we support define a small blog as one whose turnover is below £2 million and has up to 10 employees. It exempts such businesses from exemplary damages and enables them to benefit from the cost advantages of an arbitration service if they join a regulator, and that last point will be particularly welcome to the community. As I say, we support the proposals, and I am grateful for the manner in which they have been pursued within the all-party agreement which has underpinned the whole process, so we will not be dividing the House.

In the time available, I would like to make a couple of ruminations about some of the issues that we are talking about today, and within that are two questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. The first is that the digital world as we know it is changing rapidly and the complexity and parliamentary arithmetic of changing the royal charter means that it will be hard to alter the legislation after this Session, so it needs to be right. What consideration have the Government given to the health and future of the blogging industry, and can the noble Lord share with us the Government’s thinking on this point? I understand that the indicators for a micro-business have come from a definition used by BIS, and in that sense they are not specific to the blogosphere. I have had representations already, and I am sure that other noble Lords will also have received them, from those who argue that the figures being used are on the high side, as rarely do we find 10 employees or even an annual turnover of £2 million in a blog company. That would make for a very healthy company, but it is not how the sector operates. Can the Minister estimate roughly how many blogs this definition would capture at present?

I turn to a related but more general point. We are talking about an industry that is in the process of change. For example, the print circulation of newspapers is estimated to shrink by at least a quarter in the next five years and yet we are facing a rather bizarre situation where newspapers are exempted the full 20% rate of VAT on print sales despite the fact that in many cases online traffic now represents the majority of their audiences. This is something which is bound to grow as we go forward. In fact, we are fast approaching a situation where what we previously believed, which is that we in this country do not tax reading, is becoming the reverse of what will happen. Those who read using electronic means, which will include those who are caught by this amendment, will be paying 20% VAT. Is this something that the Minister can say is under consideration, because it seems to me that we will need to face up to it before too long?

I am very grateful to the Minister for mentioning Mumsnet because it was the subject of discussions in another place, and others have raised it. The break point that he expressed is one to which we may need to return. Perhaps when he concludes he will reflect on this. At what point do those who blog and use it as a campaigning tool get caught? There is some doubt in what he has said about whether Mumsnet, which is not a charity but exists largely to circulate material that is in favour of a particular point of view, could possibly be caught by this exception. It is one of a number of areas in which, as the Minister has said, time will show us what emerges. However, a little more clarity at this stage would be helpful.

Finally, the Minister was keen to assert that it would not be sensible at this stage to define a blog. He was then caught quite quickly by a question related to blogging which illustrates that sometimes it might be sensible to have in primary legislation clear definitions which we can all use. I understand and support the idea that it is probably wrong to try to be definitive at this stage and that we should see how things go, but if that is the case, are there are any thoughts about how the Government might consider revisiting the issue within a reasonable time if it turns out that we need to move? After all, as I have said, this is the digital age and things are moving fast. What is a blog today may change into something else, and we want to be sure that we have the flexibility which I do not currently see in the Bill.

[Lord McNally]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, not only for that reply but for the constructive role he has played in getting us as far as we are today. It is important to retain an all-party approach as we take this through. The noble Lord asked how many blogs this amendment will cover. We cannot provide an accurate estimate because blogs are constantly started up and then stopped. However, we feel that this is the right figure in order to exclude all those who we hope and intend to exclude. On the definition of a blog, I was tempted to call in aid that used by Clement Attlee when he wanted to exclude Trotskyists from the Labour Party. They said, “How do we know who are Trotskyists?”, and he said, “It’s a bit like an elephant—when you see one, you know one”. In a way, we are groping with blogs in an age of technology that is constantly and frighteningly rapidly changing.

We have tried to get some key features which distinguish blogs from online newspaper reporting. A blog is used primarily for an expression of opinion. Multi-authored blogs usually cover a single subject of interest. In all cases, blogs do not report in a factual and neutral way on news or current affairs but are led by the personal views of the individuals. While an online news site may contain comment, opinion or bias, comment pieces are not its principal focus. What constitutes a blog may change over time as convergence increases.

It is a difficult area. When we debate these areas, we often point out that future-proofing is virtually impossible. We hope that the definition I have given today has been sufficiently carefully drafted to provide the maximum possible clarity to organisations seeking to know whether they are caught. We have produced a handy set of questions on our website to help organisations to work this out. This is intended as guidance only. Ultimately, as in the case of all legislation, the decision on whether an organisation comes within or outside the scope of any particular piece of legislation will fall to the courts. The intention of the definition is to capture news publishers who were the focus of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry and his subsequent recommendations. They are intended to act as the key incentive for those publishers to join the new press regulator, while also protecting those not intending to join.

On Mumsnet, protection is the interlocking test, but such an organisation may branch out or develop a kind of activity which takes it into the realms of news and newspapers—a news media. Again, we would have to be flexible. If an organisation develops in a way that makes it a news organisation, it would have to consider its position. Lord Justice Leveson, in making his recommendation and recognising the changing architecture of our media, specifically said that he hoped news organisations that were primarily online would consider themselves willing to join any new regulator.

Parliament at both ends of the Corridor has done a good bit of business in dealing with a specific concern that was raised. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his very constructive and helpful approach, not only at the Dispatch Box, but in bilateral discussions.

Defamation Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, before we come to the Front Bench speeches, may I ask for some help for lay Members of the House and point to an opportunity? An enormous amount rides upon my noble friend’s very convincing and confident undertaking to deliver an acceptable and effective solution by the middle of this year. Many others have had that ambition and failed; there is a danger that he may fail. It seems we would then have a situation where nothing can be done for a very long time. The Minister would be giving a great help to the House if, between now and making his speech, he could get clearance for an undertaking that if a satisfactory solution is not arrived at by the end of this year, or indeed by its middle, then legislative time should be brought in so that we can have a statutory system instead—and not wait to extend the 67 years into three quarters of a century.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, today’s excellent debate has strong echoes of the occasion on which we first received the Leveson report. Your Lordships may recall that on that occasion we had to have two Statements; one was given by the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who said that he was speaking for the Government, and the other was given by, let us say, another government Minister—did we are discover in what capacity it was that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was speaking? The point is that on that occasion, all three major parties claimed to be supporting what Lord Justice Leveson was recommending. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said,

“Lord Justice Leveson sets out proposals for independent self-regulation organised by the media. He details the key requirements that an independent self-regulatory body should meet, including: independence of appointments and funding; a standards code; an arbitration service; and a speedy complaint-handling mechanism. Crucially, it must have the power to demand upfront apologies and impose million-pound fines. These are the Leveson principles. They are the central recommendations of the report. If they can be put in place, we truly will have a regulatory system that delivers public confidence, justice for the victims, and a step-change in the way the press is regulated in our country. I accept these principles and I hope the whole House will come behind them”.—[Official Report, 29/11/12; col. 340.]

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, obviously quoting his leader, said:

“I have always said that I would support Lord Justice Leveson’s reforms, providing they are proportionate and workable … I believe that to be the case for the report’s core proposal for a tougher system of self-regulation, supported by new, independent checks, recognised in law”.—[Official Report, 29/11/12; col. 351.]

The other groups in your Lordships’ House were equally supportive. As my noble friend Lord Puttnam reminded us, that remained the situation when we had our extended debate on the report on Friday 11 January. Since the original publication of the report, the parties have been engaged in tripartite talks that have been ongoing for about two months. However, we hear that the pace of these has slowed down considerably in recent weeks, with the most recent scheduled meeting being cancelled by the Government and offers to meet and resume talks in the light of today’s amendments being rebuffed. It is worth recalling that when we entered the cross-party talks, we set the Government a deadline of the end of January to publish Leveson-compliant measures. It is noticeable that the Government have so far been unable to publish their proposals, although we know that they include at least one draft royal charter and some statutory underpinning.

At the heart of today’s debate is the question of whether we have independent self-regulation backed by law. We need statute because the current system of self-regulation has failed year after year for 70 years, and despite seven major reports. Trust, as the most reverend Primate said, is in short supply here—something has to happen. Lord Justice Leveson proposes a framework that provides for the continuation of self-regulation by the press but with a legal guarantee that self-regulation will be effective and independent and will continue to meet high standards. The role of the law, the legal underpinning, would be limited to setting up a body whose task would be to recognise the self-regulated system and to check it once every three years. Lord Justice Leveson said that this was essential to ensure that, despite all the protestations of change and good intentions, the press did not once again slip back into its old ways, as it has always done after all the other inquiries and reports.

We believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s answer to that decades-old problem is ingenious. It ensures that the press regulates itself independent of both the Government and its own interests, but it also ensures that there is statutory backing for the system. As I have indicated, there is wide agreement in Parliament that Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations should be implemented. If we were in power, we would make every effort to get agreement to implement the Leveson proposals in full. We think that there is no credible argument for today, and that action should be taken forthwith—certainly by the end of the current parliamentary session.

While the Government have shared their suggestion of a royal charter and accompanying clauses with us in the talks—and with the newspaper industry, it should be noted—most MPs, Peers, lawyers and others with an interest have yet to see them.

The noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Hunt, made interesting interventions in this debate today. I am bound to say that without the detail it is very hard to judge what they are doing and how they are going to do it, but I felt that neither of them commanded the support of the House.

It is now time for the Government to have the courage of their convictions. The status quo is not an option. We have drafted and published our Bill and so have others, including Hacked Off. While the talks have been useful and obviously will continue, the main decision here—whether it is to be statute alone or statute and charter—must now be discussed openly; the public must be able to scrutinise the proposals; the victims should be able to signify their consent; and Parliament, to which Lord Justice Leveson entrusted a key role in setting up the new system, must be given an early opportunity to decide.

As I said, there is a strong case for action being taken on an all-party basis; the victims, and the public more generally, expect that. The families who suffered press intrusion and gross violations of their privacy are still pressing for the changes that will protect people in the future from what happened to them. These victims have gone through, and, in some cases, are still going through, unimaginable suffering. They remind us by their evident presence why the status quo, unsatisfactory for decades, is not an option. We must act on Leveson’s proposals for substantial and lasting change.

The amendments so brilliantly introduced by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McKay, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland are a reflection of the lack of confidence in, and the frustration with, the current process of implementing the Leveson proposals. There are some who feel that the apparent politicisation of the implementation process, because of alternative ideas such as the royal charter, takes us some considerable distance from Lord Leveson’s recommendations, and in so doing, erodes the trust of both victims of press abuse and the general public.

The purpose of the amendments in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Hollins, is to tighten up the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Puttnam so that the new clause and schedules being inserted implement Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations in a clearer and more effective way. These amendments are entirely consistent with the spirit of my noble friend Lord Puttnam’s amendments and aim to ensure that the Defamation Bill contains a fully workable version of the Leveson recommendations.

No one is claiming that the amendments answer the criticisms the Government might make about the drafting, nor that these amendments make the package “Leveson in full”, but they would, if passed, mark the beginning of a process to incorporate most of the Leveson recommendations into statute and they send a very direct message to the Government that the House wishes to see the Leveson report implemented. If they are passed this afternoon, as I hope they will be, your Lordships’ House will be doing a valuable service helping the Government of the day to do what at heart they say they want to do but which they have, to date, not been able to deliver.

So the questions we need to focus on are not the particular drafting of the amendments before us, because there would be ample time to sort that out at Third Reading, in the Commons or at ping-pong, but, under our procedures, that could not happen if we do not pass these amendments today. We must beware false choices. We were offered them recently in the sense that the allegation being made is that what is on offer is statutory regulation of the press. It is not. It may well be that what we have on offer today is not Leveson, it may be the back door but, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, the prospects of getting it through the front door, certainly not one with the number 10 on it, are quite remote. It could be characterised as being a first step down the road we need to take, and it changes the status quo. It will remind the Prime Minister and the coalition Government of the welcome they gave to the Leveson report when it was first published and, because a clock will have started ticking, remind them that too much time has already passed.

I suppose that the arguments that the Minister will give us shortly are that the Government are listening, that they can be relied on to act, and that they will be bringing forward consensus proposals which will be acceptable to all parties. He may suggest that all this can be done by Third Reading, which I understand is on Monday 25 February, immediately after our Recess. He may even promise publication of the Government’s proposals—that would be nice—and he may offer a revised timetable for more talks, which we would certainly look at. Can we take that risk? As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, warned us, tomorrow never comes. Is there credible evidence sufficient to believe that those responsible for the current delays are working to a deadline that delivers the necessary changes by the end of this Session? Even if you believe all that, what is the downside if we pass these amendments today? At heart, they genuinely offer the Government a chance to get this process back on track. Even if the Minister, when he comes to reply to this debate, gives your Lordships’ House an unequivocal assurance that he will bring back a government amendment on this topic which will deliver Leveson on Third Reading, I still believe that agreeing this amendment is what the people of this country want, and what the victims deserve.

When the Minister sits down, it will be for the proposer of the amendment to decide whether to test the opinion of the House. If he decides to do so, we on this side will support him.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brennan]

My Lords, the topic under debate appears to involve general agreement that this class of case is a proper one to be brought in the courts of this country. The critical question therefore is: is it financially possible to bring such a case under the proposed reforms in this Bill? These are long cases, which take years, and they are complex and very expensive. They involve defendants with economic might who are prepared to take on the claimants remorselessly. I remind the House that the Trafigura case actually reached the stage where this Parliament was debating whether that company’s obtaining of a super-injunction meant that Parliament could no longer debate the issues raised by the case. That is might.

The idea that such a case can readily be brought and financed under these reforms is one with which no one whom I know in the law agrees. I have been involved in four of these 10 or 12 cases in the past decade and they have all involved millions of pounds on both sides. In Trafigura, the published costs of the defendants without a trial were £14 million. I await with interest to hear from the Minister any mathematics or economic analysis that explains to this country how lawyers here under these new arrangements—a reduced success fee and no “after the event” insurance—could fund such a case. Everyone I speak to says, frankly, that it is impossible.

If the Minister comes forward with some mathematics that are realistic and not ethereal, and if he gives us financial analysis that is not far distant from reality, the House might still be persuaded. As yet, no one in public has produced such material. The result is that we expect the developing world to open its doors to our great companies to make large profits for the benefit of our country but, when those investments produce adverse consequences, we in this country close our doors of justice to the people who have suffered. That cannot be acceptable, and the Government should think again.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has introduced this group of amendments with her customary fluency and passion, and she has been joined by other speakers who have made the case well. As has been pointed out, this measure risks damage to the UK’s reputation for justice to those people who have suffered damage to their human rights caused by companies based in the United Kingdom. I am sure that none of us wishes to see that happen.

We have support from all around the House, and we are grateful to those who have joined in on these amendments. The settled view of your Lordships’ House is clearly that there is a real danger that, if this Bill goes through in its present form, the changes that it makes to the way in which international human rights cases are to operate, combined with the restricted damages that the Rome II regulations impose on the level of damages that can be awarded to claimants, will make it impossible for such cases to be mounted in the UK in future.

As the House has heard, several very important independent charities have been lobbying hard on this issue. Several meetings have been held with the Minister and correspondence has been exchanged. We hoped that an accommodation could be reached, and we went to see him yesterday in the hope that that might be possible. He e-mailed us today to say that he could not accept our amendments.

It is clear to me that while on the one hand the Government do not want to be responsible for preventing these cases continuing in future, they have not so far been convinced that it is highly probable that they will occur in future. Why is that? The arithmetic, as has been said, is very clear. We seem to be in a situation where the department’s overriding concern that the architecture of the Bill should be retained is working here against good legislation. What other arguments can there possibly be? We have heard from those directly involved in these cases and we know what the figures are. It is clear that the facts outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lord Brennan that the Government are wrong. I hope that when the time comes the noble Baroness will test the opinion of the House, and we will be supporting her in the Lobby.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I confirm that we have been in regular discussions about these amendments, and I regret that I am not able to accept them today.

There have been a number of comments about costs and indeed about the Trafigura case. What strikes me most about that case is that the £30 million that was won in damages worked out at about £1,000 per victim—against, as has already been accepted, legal costs that at one time, until they were beaten down, were running at £100 million. To me, that is an obscene system.

With regard to the reforms that we brought forward, we have said that we believe CFAs will continue. We are also introducing damages-based agreements. Far from welcoming them, though, the CBI and others worry that those may well provide funding in this area. So, it is not that the Government are opposed to bringing companies to account for their behaviour. I just do not believe in the rather broad claims by the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Judd, that this issue will dramatically affect the lives of people in developing countries. There are other areas of policy that are going to do much more than that.

I make clear that the Government strongly support claims arising from allegations of corporate harm in developing countries being brought, and we support the protection of damages for personal injury. Where we disagree with the supporters of the amendment is that we do not believe that our plans would prevent such cases being brought or ultimately damage the ability of NGOs and others to hold big business to account.

An exception along the lines proposed is in our view neither necessary nor justified. It is not necessary because reformed “no win no fee” arrangements will still allow cases to be brought. It is not justified because it would undermine the wider rationale for the Jackson reforms in Part 2 of the Bill, which should apply across civil litigation without any exceptions. In doing so, it would introduce unfairness between different types of claimant.

We recognise, however, that, following the Rome II regulations, damages in these cases can be relatively low, and they will not be subject to the 10 per cent increase available for other claims. The costs awarded can nevertheless be extremely high, as was demonstrated by the Trafigura case. The question is whether any exception should be made for these cases either on a wider basis, as proposed in Amendments 21, 22, 23 and 26, or on a narrower basis, as proposed in Amendment 27. I concede that in putting forward Amendment 27, the movers tried to put forward a narrow-based solution.

The Government have listened to this debate and those that went before, and we have reflected carefully on the points raised. We have held many meetings with interested stakeholders and NGOs over the past months, and the Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. I have looked again at the evidence that has been presented, including reports by Professor Rachael Mulheron of the University of London and Mr Smith of First Assist. Both reports make the general case for recoverable success fees and insurance premiums to continue in these cases, but they do not present any figures showing why these cases could not be brought in future. During our discussions with the NGOs we have asked for such evidence but it has not been forthcoming, even though we have asked them for more detailed figures.

The truth is that the available evidence shows that these cases, though few in number—about 10 in a decade—have historically been highly profitable for the legal firms involved. Although under our plans the margins available would be reduced, they are still likely to remain attractive. I remind noble Lords of the sums involved. Since the previous Government introduced the recoverability of success fees and insurance premiums in 2000, we know that there have been only around 10 of these cases, mainly undertaken by a single firm of solicitors. Most of these cases have succeeded or settled, but some claims have been pursued in which costs have not ultimately been recovered. The figures suggest that in those cases that were not pursued to trial, there were disbursements of some £131,000 and legal costs in the region of £1.4 million. I appreciate that those figures will not cover all costs in all cases but they should be a fair ball-park indication. £1.4 million sounds like a lot of money for a firm to bear in what are effectively losses on a case not pursued and won until the substantial sums that have been received in success fees are considered. We know that in the case of Trafigura alone, success fees—intended to cover the costs in lost cases—of around £29 million were allowed by the Court of Appeal. Those figures amount to a net gain for claimant lawyers from these cases over the past decade of more than £27 million from the success fees for Trafigura alone. That does not include all the success fees in the other successful cases.

These figures speak for themselves. They cast all emotion aside and demonstrate the substantial gains in legal costs from these cases and the proportionately much lower costs expended. When the ratio of earnings to losses is more than 10:1, the current system can, to put it mildly, bear some reform. Therefore, while I recognise that claims against multinationals can be complex, the changes that we are making to the CFA regime will not prevent these cases being brought in the future. They can still be brought but the costs will be more proportionate. As Lord Justice Jackson recognised, a greater incentive for claimants’ lawyers to work more smartly is needed so that they incur only costs that are justified when bringing a claim, rather than allowing costs to escalate.

It is worth pointing out, as I have previously in the House, the criticism by the Court of Appeal of the costs claimed by the claimants in the Trafigura case. In that case, the court itself questioned whether some of the work undertaken by the claimants’ lawyers was necessary. It criticised them for seeking costs of £100 million in a case that resulted in payment of £30 million in damages. It is not for me to question the conduct of those involved, but it needs to be borne in mind when looking at the extraordinary costs claimed in that case alone. I should add—again, as I have pointed out to the House previously—that in that case the defendant’s costs were approximately £14 million, which is around one-seventh of the costs claimed by the claimants.

I turn now to Amendment 27, which seeks to allow for the recoverability of “after the event” insurance premiums to pay adverse legal costs, including expert fees and other disbursements. In doing so, the amendment goes much wider than just the cost of funding the expert reports for which we have provided in the special situation of clinical negligence cases. The amendment would potentially cover paying the other side’s costs, too, but this is not necessary because we are introducing a system of qualified one-way cost shifting in personal injury cases, which will protect losing claimants from having to pay the other side’s costs. We have discussed making exceptions in relation to expert reports in other contexts, but we do not believe that an exception is more needed here than in other cases. As I have said, the costs recovered in successful multinational cases have been substantial and could provide funds towards paying up front for reports where needed.

As I indicated on Report, on several occasions my officials and I have met representatives of the NGOs that support these cases. However, we have not been persuaded that such cases cannot continue to be brought when our changes are implemented. Nor are we persuaded that they justify an exception in the Bill that would be unfair to other, no less deserving claimants.

The House will be aware of all the arguments that I have rehearsed today, in Committee and on Report. We have treated subsequent discussions with the seriousness they deserve, and we have listened carefully. However, the Government continue to believe that reform is unavoidable, necessary and overdue. In this case in particular, we should not mix up a challenge to overgenerous costs with a denial of access to justice. Access to justice is precisely what the reformed CFA regime will protect, but as part of a more proportionate and balanced system. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brennan]

My Lords, the arrival of globalisation as a world economic and human phenomenon, we hope, brings more benefits than disadvantages. However, reality tells us that globalisation produces serious adverse consequences from time to time, particularly in the developing world. It cannot be right that developed countries such as ours do not have a system of justice that provides remedies for those affected in such countries because of the liability of companies based in this jurisdiction. That reality in terms of what justice should provide should enable people from those countries access to our courts to seek appropriate remedies.

Amendment 134 in this group gives a power to the Lord Chancellor to provide regulations that would permit, in certain circumstances, our courts to deal with such cases. The numbers of cases that are likely to arise are few. Their cost and complexity is very large. To make provision for them would produce no consequence that would damage the Government’s policy in this Bill to save money and introduce cost control. None of that would be affected.

In my professional experience at the Bar I have done several of these cases. I have two examples to illustrate what I consider to be the validity of my submission to your Lordships. The South African resource of asbestos was a major benefit to companies in this country for decades. The standards of working practices and protection of ordinary workers were extremely low. I will not reveal anything that is not in the public domain by saying that I represented the plaintiff African miners—7,000 of them—many of whom were women, who were being used to break asbestos rock against granite to free the asbestos fibres for collection and use while bearing on their backs newborn babies. It is difficult to imagine that anyone would not think that that called for some remedy, if proved.

The case was dealt with in this country in the 1990s and it took three years of hearings in the lower court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords Judicial Committee before the plaintiffs finally got an order that the case should be heard in this country. Not surprisingly, it was eventually settled, a settlement that included compensation to all those people who had had to produce their medical records, their X-rays, from the very difficult administrative circumstances of the young South Africa of the 1990s and of the Government of South Africa, who were given money by the defendant company to contribute toward the clean-up of asbestos residues at the mines where they had been produced. All of that produced a trust settlement. All of that cost a huge amount in expense, with top class lawyers. Can it seriously be suggested that, under any of the reforms proposed in this Bill, such services by lawyers would be given these days? It is an absurd proposition.

I will move on to describe the second case, and then I will briefly come to a conclusion. I was involved in the Ivory Coast case in its early stages and I went to Abijan. We had tens of thousands of claimants, all of whom had to fill in questionnaires and produce medical evidence—often in French, in Francophone Côte d’Ivoire —and then come to England to pursue their case. By the time of this case, a few years ago, the law had changed, and I invite the Minister and his staff to bear this in mind. The law of the European Union now states that plaintiffs like that must sue the company which is alleged to be at fault in the jurisdiction from which that company operates. They are required to come to our country to pursue their claim. It is not a matter of form shopping—it is a requirement. That case cost a fortune, and it was settled, and it took years.

Companies such as this are often either insured, with enormous excesses that give them a lot of influence on the conduct of the litigation, or they are self-insured, because they are so big and powerful. For two or three years the programme is one of the plaintiffs producing all their medical and expert evidence and then going to court, hearing after hearing, long before trial, and spending a fortune. However, there was legal aid for the South African case and a conditional fee agreement for the case I have just mentioned. It worked and justice was done. That is all that I am asking the Government to consider should be done for this class of case in the future. These people have to come here. They do not have elite lawyers, funding or local remedies. They come to our country for justice. They come to where the company was based and where it should face justice.

This is a state of affairs which I commend to the attention of the Government and the House. How could it be said that any such case was properly catered for by allowing the previous system that was used in the Côte d’Ivoire case to continue? How could that adversely affect all the domestic factors that figure for local people? How could it benefit this country? Will we leave the Chamber having voted in favour of this, with our heads held high because we represent a country in which justice still prevails and access for the poorest, from wherever, is still available, or do we hang our heads in shame over something that cannot possibly be justified?

There is a risk that if this kind of exception is not made grave injustice will follow and the reputation of our country and our courts for just civil proceedings will be seriously damaged. It is time to think.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who, with her usual fluency and clarity, made the case extremely well. My noble friend Lord Judd, with his lifelong commitment to human rights, also drew attention to the many organisations who have written to us and who have supported the case that has been made tonight. My noble friend Lord Brennan, who has just spoken, has direct experience of many of the cases which we are talking about today and left us with a very powerful message about the impact that could be effected if the Bill goes forward unchanged. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her support of our amendment, particularly for drawing attention to the wider soft-power aspects which are so important in this area, and the right reverend Prelate for bringing into play the inevitable impact on poor communities of the Rome II regulations. Those will of course limit the level of expenses that they can possibly receive, and therefore create a completely unbalanced playing field in this area.

To apply the test that was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in the previous group, it is clear that the widely held view around your Lordships’ House is that once this Bill becomes law, it will not be possible to mount cases brought by vulnerable victims of corporate abuses perpetrated overseas by UK companies within the English courts. As we have been reminded, they have to be raised here. There can be little doubt that the Government really are on the wrong side of the argument tonight, and I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in not being at all clear why this is the case.

In his letter to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, of last month, which has already been referred to, the Minister argued that corporate human rights cases could still be viable under the measures contained in the Bill, and he helpfully highlighted the opportunity to use damages-based agreements—DBAs. This line of argument derives from the much quoted Jackson report which, it is worth pointing out, did not specifically deal with the cases that we are highlighting today. I will not go into the detailed arguments, as they have been well covered, but neither of Lord Jackson’s suggestions—under which the effect of lower damages recovery would be ameliorated, in his view—will work for typical corporate human rights abuse actions brought by claimants from developing countries.

We recognise, and indeed support in some ways, that one objective of this Bill is to reduce the costs of cases across the legal system as a whole, and one cannot be against that. Clearly there is a much better reason for this where these costs fall to be met in whole or part by the public purse but, as the Minister has already accepted, we are not dealing with this area in this part of the Bill. However, in the cases we have highlighted, not only is there no cost to the public purse, but there is already a system in place to decide whether the legal costs awarded are appropriate. Indeed, it was used in recent cases to significantly reduce the costs claimed by the winning side, although they did in fact settle.

It may be irritating to the department to have to create a carve-out in a Bill for such a small group of cases, but surely it is vitally important that vulnerable victims should get justice—and at least some compensation —for the trauma and harm that they have experienced, or for the loss of livelihood or even of life that has been caused by UK companies. It is equally important that companies need to know that they can be brought to account if they act irresponsibly. That is why we believe it is warranted to carve out an exception, so that the broader measures in this Bill do not close off justice in the UK for this small but very significant group of cases.

Our amendments would retain the current funding system in effect for human rights cases. Creating this exception would not be fatal to the overall aims of the Bill. The existing regime of success fees and “after the event” insurance premiums being paid by the losing company instead of coming out of the damages of the claimant are, in our view, the most sensible way of ensuring that these cases continue to be mounted. Moreover, it is unlikely to be more than a few cases a year, as stringent rules have to be met before such cases can be mounted.

In the debate last week, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, recognised that, in clinical negligence cases, removing the recoverability of ATE insurance premiums could create a real problem for claimants. The Government have therefore created a carve-out because expert reports are such an essential requirement for building clinical negligence cases successfully. However, the expenses of obtaining such reports would not necessarily be covered under the new regime. In the human rights cases that we are looking at, expert opinions and reports—for example, the analysis of alleged toxic waste or polluted water; or medical examinations in relation to asbestos ingested by miners in South Africa—are a vital part of showing that there is a valid case to answer. There is a very strong read-across from clinical negligence cases to the sort of human rights cases we are dealing with here.

I hope we can find an accommodation here. In plain terms, all the evidence suggests that the approach being taken in this Bill will kill off the chances of mounting this very small group of special cases in future. How poignant it is that at the same time as we are debating this amendment, the Foreign Office is leading valuable cross-governmental work on how we implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights adopted in June 2011, which the Ministers told us in our meeting with them that the Government support. We were one of the countries most closely involved in UN Special Representative John Ruggie’s work. Indeed, the previous and the present Governments have been vocal in their support of the guiding principles and the present Prime Minister has committed publicly to implement them.

What sort of example are we setting and what message are we sending to UK companies if we now change our laws to make it hard for poor victims of corporate abuses perpetrated by UK companies to seek redress? They may be a small number of cases but they have had a direct impact on the lives of millions of people in the developing world. Each successful case has shone a harsh light on key areas of corporate misconduct in the developing world—from the dumping of pollutants in the water supplies of communities to appalling health and safety standards in mines and to direct corporate involvement in abduction and torture. Ultimately, it is surely important that businesses know that they cannot act with impunity. We do not want the majority of responsible UK businesses to be at a disadvantage because laggard companies get away with substandard, harmful business practices.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

74A: Schedule 1, page 141, line 3, at end insert—
“Debt management and relief or remedyCivil legal services in relation to any debt management relief or remedy available under Part 5 of the Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 74A and 74B about legal aid for debt, and in so doing I declare an interest as chair of the Consumer Credit Counselling Service. Under the proposals in the Bill, all legal aid for debt issues, including advice, is excluded from the scope of legal aid, except for legal services provided in relation to a bankruptcy order against individuals, under Part IX of the Insolvency Act 1986, where the individual’s estate includes their home. The purpose of our amendments is to reverse that proposal. We believe that it starts from the wrong premise, that it will not save money and that we will lose an effective and well used remedy, the debt relief order, which helps the poorest and most indebted in our society.

Debt problems are sadly increasingly common, and unless dealt with promptly and effectively can have a major impact on individuals, families and communities. A recent report from the Legal Services Commission confirms that there are a variety of causes of debt problems, the most common being changing circumstances such as ill health, relationship breakdown and loss of employment. Qualitative interviews, and I confirm this from my own experience, often reveal particularly distressing impacts on parents’ relationships with their children and on the wider family. More generally, debt problems have been found to make it difficult for people to carry on living normal lives.

In the same report, the average cost to the public and in lost economic output is estimated at over £1,000 per debt case, with more serious problems involving costs of many times this amount. So we can say with some confidence that debt problems are serious and that they can, and often do, have direct consequences. We therefore reject the premise that debt cases should be removed from the scope of legal aid.

When we debated this issue in Committee, the point was made that all debt problems are underpinned by complex contractual obligations and that, in the majority of cases, such advice and support take place within a legal framework that will involve issues of liability, consumer credit contracts, creditors’ enforcement powers, statutory debt remedies and enforcement processes within the court system and beyond.

As I have mentioned already, there is another dimension to this, which is that most, if not all, of those who contact my charity and other providers of debt advice almost always have other issues, such as illness, employment problems or relationship problems that have either caused the debt problem or contributed to it. It is this compounding effect that makes the withdrawal of legal aid for all debt issues such a simplistic proposal. Therefore, my second point is that debt problems should not be removed from the scope of legal aid because the economic and social consequences far outweigh the savings that are being proposed.

Our third point is expressed in Amendment 74B. We think that the withdrawal of legal aid for debt will in effect lead to the closure of the debt relief order system, which is operated by the Insolvency Service. DROs can be considered only by application via approved intermediaries working for organisations that have to be approved by the Insolvency Service. Approved intermediaries are usually experienced debt advisers, the vast majority of whom are based in citizens advice bureaux around the country, and they are currently funded by legal aid.

In 2011, nearly 29,000 debt relief orders were made, of which 70 per cent were processed by CAB debt advisers in their role as authorised intermediaries. Citizens Advice has made it clear that it will not be able to employ a sufficient number of approved intermediaries if legal aid is withdrawn. If the Bill goes ahead in its present form, it is clear that the DRO system will not survive. More than 20,000 families a year who would otherwise be able to write off their debts will not be able to do so.

It is a classic Catch-22; you can proceed with a DRO only through an authorised intermediary approved by the Insolvency Service. If the legal aid funding is cut, there will be no authorised intermediaries and the DRO scheme will simply wither on the vine. This is not just a cut in the legal aid bill; it is the end of a good and effective debt solution introduced in 2007 and used since then by thousands of families faced with disaster. It simply should not happen. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, I support Amendments 74A and 74B, to which my name has been added. I declare an interest as president of the Money Advice Trust. In that capacity I have sat in as an observer at the National Debtline and the telephone helpline service that the Money Advice Trust runs, and I have heard first hand some up-to-date examples of the complexity of debt problems. This has brought me to the conclusion that the problem here—which these amendments are designed to resolve—is that when this proposal was framed in the Bill, sufficiently careful attention was not paid to the distinction between legal advice for people with debt management problems and general debt advice.

The Money Advice Trust tries to prevent existing debt problems running out of control, especially when they are tied up with other issues such as mental health problems or the threat of repossession. While we are talking about complex problems that require the advisers to be quite expert—and certainly sensitive—we are nevertheless talking about first-stage generalist debt advice. This is way beyond the point at which the client needs legal advice.

My understanding is that the Government view debt advice as “not strictly legal work” and feel comfortable about the withdrawal of legal aid because they expect that services such as the Money Advice Trust’s debt helpline will provide appropriate advice services instead by phone—the withdrawal of legal aid is neither here nor there. As I understand it, this shift in service responsibility has not even been discussed, formally or informally, with the Money Advice Trust, and it is precisely because the kind of debt advice that the Money Advice Trust provides is different from advice that is “strictly legal” that legal aid needs to be retained.

The Money Advice Trust describes what it provides as “assisted self-help”—preparing budgets, helping clients seek additional benefits, helping them calculate acceptable repayments to creditors, and so on—but this is not legal advice. The Money Advice Trust is not equipped to provide legal advice; for example, it cannot advise clients on their chances of success in court or prepare them for court hearings, or how to get statutory debt relief or challenge collection and enforcement actions. If people needing formal legal advice were to rely on the Money Advice Trust, it simply would not have the capacity or the expertise to help them. The 200,000-odd people who go to that service every year would get much poorer outcomes.

In the long run, the cost of the gap in provision that would be created by the withdrawal of legal aid in these circumstances would end up being far greater, and would therefore frustrate and subvert the Government’s perfectly reasonable objective of saving money. People with debt problems need the services of organisations such as the Money Advice Trust but they may also need formal legal advice, and when and if they do, it would be uncivilised to deny them access to legal aid.

I urge the Government to think again carefully about the distinction between legal advice and more generalist debt advice of the sort that this charity provides, and to accept these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was always known for his impetuosity.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and his ongoing interest in debt matters. However, this amendment would have the effect of broadening the availability of legal aid for debt cases, contrary to our current proposals, which are to retain legal aid for priority debt cases only, where the individual’s home is at immediate risk of possession because of rent or mortgage arrears or involuntary bankruptcy.

It is never an easy decision to restrict the availability of funding but economic reality dictates that we focus scarce resources on the cases that are the highest priority. The Government have taken a principled approach to making spending reductions, prioritising funding for those categories of case that are most serious, such as where life, liberty or immediate loss of home are at stake. The necessary corollary of protecting funding in the most important areas is that we have to make tougher choices in the lower-priority areas.

When making these decisions, we have taken into account the presence of alternative appropriate forms of advice. It is simply not the case that legal advice is the only—or even the best—response to debt problems. Figures show that liability for the debt itself was reported as successfully contested in fewer than 2 per cent of cases in 2009-10, and also reveal that 62 per cent of legal help funding for debt matters was spent not on complex matters of law but on negotiating payment arrangements and advising clients on managing their affairs better.

We recognise that debt problems can be difficult and stressful for the individuals concerned, but we believe that what people often need is practical advice and support, rather than specialist legal advice. This help is quite widely and effectively available from organisations such as Credit Action, the National Debtline, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and the Insolvency Service inquiry line and website. Local authorities also signpost people to local sources of advice and assistance on debt matters. In addition, the Money Advice Trust, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred, has recently launched “My Money Steps”, an online tool for providing advice for people with debt problems. The Consumer Credit Counselling Service also offers a free online “Debt Remedy” service.

Such sources of help are best placed to deal with issues like debt relief orders, which this amendment suggests should be brought back into the scope of legal aid. These orders are relatively informal procedures, used by people who owe limited amounts of money and do not have assets. Indeed, the current legal aid scheme does not pay for their completion.

Given the availability of alternatives, and the pressing choices forced upon us by the economic situation, it does not seem a wise use of scarce resources to continue funding widely available legal advice, much of which replicates advice available elsewhere. We must move away from the assumption that for many problems that are fundamentally non-legal, the only answer is for the state to pay for legal advice.

I understand that this amendment is motivated in part by the noble Lord’s concerns about funding for citizens advice bureaux to provide debt advice. As I have said in earlier debates, we share that desire to see what can be done to help to ensure sustainability for the non-profit sector. However, let us not overstate the impact of our changes in legal aid on CABs. Legal aid funding is intended for specialist advice, not for cross-subsidy of other activities. As a matter of practice, in 2010, 85 per cent of all bureaux funding came from sources other than legal aid and half of all bureaux do not hold a legal aid contract at all. Moreover, it should be borne in mind—I am sure that the Opposition will be glad to know this—that we have already provided £20 million, which has come ahead of reductions in legal aid spend.

It is worth remembering that CABs have not had any cut in legal aid spend and will not until 2013. Of that £20 million, £16.8 million assigned to England is being used for the Advice Services Fund to support not-for-profit providers in delivering essential advice on debt, welfare benefits, employment and housing. Despite the concerns of the sector, the Money Advice Service will continue resourcing the existing free face-to-face debt advice services after 31 March, so that people in need have access to good, free advice. The Financial Services Authority has agreed to fund this provision from April.

I also understand that the Cabinet Office’s review is expected to conclude shortly and will provide recommendations on proposals to secure long-term sustainability of the sector. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace pointed out, it is only nine days to my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s Budget. Therefore, I would ask the House to be patient and to allow us to bring this important work to its conclusion.

It is always easy to make the case for spending but tough times require tough decisions. I hope that even our critics accept that we are making genuine attempts to protect the not-for-profit advice sector, not least by the pressures brought to bear by my noble friend Lord Shipley at earlier stages of this Bill and by other Members of this House who have raised the specific issue of the CABs and the not-for-profit sector. I have given assurances about this and, against that backdrop, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her contribution to this debate and for sharing her experience of working directly in this field, which I echo. I recognise many of the points that she made around that. It was also nice to have the unprompted support of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I seem to be having a little run of these things because the previous time I tried to speak about this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Best, came in on housing, which, although again relevant, was not exactly helpful to my support. Never mind, we will battle on.

At last weekend’s Lib Dem conference, a Motion was passed calling for:

“The protection of fair and equal access to justice, through … A properly funded system whereby access to legal advice and representation before the courts is not denied to those otherwise unable to bear the costs”.

It was unanimously passed but I notice that the Minister did not mention it when he made his remarks a few minutes ago.

A lot of the points that I made, which were picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, were about the difference that had to be made between legal advice and generic advice. It is certainly true that a lot of work is going on in the generic debt advice field but we have been facing problems in terms of legal advice. I notice that in his comments the Minister made more of a case for support of the voluntary sector in this area, which of course we are grateful to have, than about the individuals who we think will be affected by this. For example, if the bailiffs are at the doorstep seeking to seize someone’s goods and chattels, I think that everyone in this House would agree that they are reasonably said to be facing serious direct consequences. Yet, under the present proposals, they would neither be eligible for legal aid to contest the original order nor would they be able to access legal aid to challenge the manner in which the order had been carried out. Indeed, we know a lot about that. There are quite serious difficulties within the legal advice sector of debt which have not really been picked up in this debate so far.

It was interesting that the Minister made the point that currently debt relief orders were not being funded to any great extent by legal aid and that, to some extent, legal aid should perhaps not be used at all for this. The key reason why the DRO scheme is successful is its lower cost, which was much trumpeted by the Insolvency Service. That is because the administration fee is £90, of which £80 goes to the Insolvency Service, leaving £10 for those who have to administer it. I have looked carefully at the way in which these forms are created. It would take me a great deal of time to work through these things and I am an accountant. However, specialist support and advice is needed. I think that it is ingenuous of the Minister to say that somehow this will survive. My charity estimates that it costs us about £350 per case to deliver a completed DRO. Where will that money come from? I do not think that we have had any answer to that.

Finally, the way in which the noble Lord went on seems to suggest that he has not read the BIS Select Committee report on debt management, which was published last week. The report states:

“Citizens Advice informed us that the legal aid budget for debt advice in England and Wales is due to fall by 75 per cent from 2013”.

The noble Lord admitted that there would be some changes after 2013. The report continues that the,

“figures, from the Justice Department, suggest that the number of people currently helped with debt problems will fall by 105,000”,

which is a significant number.

Later in the report, a BIS Minister is reported as recognising that,

“the cuts to legal aid could be a problem. Clearly for particularly some Citizens Advice Bureaux and other advice agencies, it may well have quite a big impact … I am afraid these are not easy times. There are cuts being made”.

The situation facing those in debt in this country—very often not of their own accord and they certainly are not the feckless poor—is really difficult. I do not think that these proposals will help. I should like to seek the opinion of the House.