Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Baroness Vere of Norbiton Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 56 I will speak also to Amendments 57 and 57A.

Amendment 56 would require the court to consider certain factors when deciding in an individual case whether it would be appropriate to take into account a discount rate or rates different from that prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. Under new Section A1(2), introduced into the Damages Act 1996 by Clause 8(1), the court is not prevented from taking a different discount rate into account if any party to the proceedings shows that it is more appropriate in the case in question. This reflects the current law in the Damages Act 1996, although in practice the courts in England and Wales, following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Warriner v Warriner, have chosen not to exercise the current power to depart from the prescribed rate.

The effect of the amendment would be to direct the court to consider the two different sets of circumstances listed in the amendment when deciding whether to apply a rate different from the prescribed rate or rates in an individual case. How the consideration of the factors would operate to assist the court in reaching a decision in practice is unclear, but it appears that the factors mentioned are not intended to be exhaustive.

The overarching effect of the amendment would be considerably to complicate individual proceedings as it would open up the potential for a different rate to be applied much more frequently than at present. This would be likely to encourage disputes between the parties—for example, over whether a reasonable PPO offer had been made. This would create uncertainty in the law and could prolong litigation and impede settlements, as the parties in any individual case would be unclear as to what discount rate would be appropriate and might be unwilling to settle without a court ruling.

When in the March 2017 consultation we asked whether the court should retain a power to apply a different rate if persuaded by one of the parties that it would be more appropriate to do so, 96 of the responses to the question supported the retention of the existing power, with 23 against. These, in general, were concerned about the problems of uncertainty, inconsistency and delay if the power were to be expanded. These difficulties would only be increased if the amendment were adopted. We believe that it is desirable for the Lord Chancellor to set a rate that is generally applicable and is not constantly called into question in individual cases. This is the core benefit of a prescribed rate and it should not lightly be set aside.

Amendment 57 would specify that, in addition to the ability of the Lord Chancellor to specify different discount rates for different classes of case, different rates could also be specified for different periods and for descriptions of future pecuniary loss. We do not consider that the amendment is necessary. New Section A1(4) already prescribes that the Lord Chancellor may distinguish between classes of case by reference to, among other things, the description of future pecuniary loss involved and the length of the period during which future pecuniary loss is expected to occur. The Explanatory Notes state:

“Subsection (4) makes clear that the power in subsection (3) to prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case includes the power to set separate rates for different sorts of future loss or for different durations of award. For example, under this power one rate might apply to damages for the first ten years and another rate to damages for subsequent years”.


I therefore reassure the noble Earl that the Bill already addresses the point he has raised.

Amendment 57A would ensure that the Lord Chancellor’s power to prescribe different rates of return for different classes of case could be applied to specify different rates for classes of case defined by reference to the anticipated scale of the award. New Section A1(3) provides that different rates of return may be prescribed under new Section A1(1) for different classes of case. New Section A1(4) clarifies that this power extends to defining classes by reference to heads of loss or duration of loss. This clarification is not exhaustive of the categories that the Lord Chancellor might adopt.

The power to set different rates of return for different classes of case is, however, already provided for, and the Lord Chancellor will decide whether to use the power to set different rates in the way that best delivers the objective of setting a prescribed rate. Such cases could indeed extend to the situation envisaged by the amendment, although this may be a difficult distinction to define and apply in practice. However, they could also be classed by reference to numerous other classes of case. It is, however, unnecessary to define what the classes may be. Given this, I do not think that the amendment proposed is necessary. On the basis of the explanation I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful to all those who took part in the debate and to the Minister for her informative reply. I have to say, however, that I did find that it went two ways: on the one hand, we do not need the amendment because it is already there; on the other hand, the amendment, if effected, will cause uncertainty. That may not wholly do justice to the subtlety of the argument, but it did seem essentially to be that.

As I understand it, my noble friend said that the Lord Chancellor can choose different rates but a judge cannot, because the decision is made. That is, of course, at odds with the decision made by Jonathan Sumption and with the view of many. I respectfully submit that, although it will not be a regular occurrence, it is better for there to be a degree of flexibility for judges to order a different rate depending on the particular head of loss—as was done in the case in Guernsey and in many other jurisdictions. But I can see that I have not yet persuaded the Government of that.

As to the other part of the amendment, which relates to the consideration of an offer of periodical payments, with respect, I do not understand how that causes confusion, difficulty or uncertainty. It is a factor that a court can take into consideration—it is entirely a matter for the court. It is also, I submit, something that will assist in bringing about a settlement, because a claimant who is in receipt of a sensible offer of periodical payments may say to him or herself, “If I don’t accept this offer, there is a risk that there will be a less favourable discount rate”. That should promote settlement, which seems to be an aim that everybody concerned with these debates shares. So at the moment I am not satisfied that that would cause any difficulties.

I share with all noble Lords the desire to somehow include in the Bill or elsewhere more encouragement to use periodical payments. Therefore I would like to be included on the CC list for the meeting with the Minister so that I can bring what limited wisdom I have to try to encourage this. In the meantime, I shall consider carefully what my noble friend said. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the amendments in the group alter how often reviews of the rate take place and shorten the timing of the review period. Some of the points I shall make have been touched on in previous groups but, I feel, are worth repeating in this context.

The three-year period adopted in the Bill represents a compromise approach based on the responses to the March 2017 consultation. A wide range of views were expressed as to how often the rate should be reviewed, from automatic reviews at short intervals to every 10 years. The most popular options among the substantial majority who favoured fixed-period reviews were: one year, with 28 responses; five years, with 23 responses; and 21 favouring something in between.

In adopting a three-year period, we were conscious that any fixed period will at some stage influence litigation behaviour. In our view, three years strikes a reasonable balance between the risk of continual, or at least over-frequent, anticipation of rate changes associated with a shorter period influencing litigation behaviour, on the one hand, and the risk resulting from a longer period of more dramatic changes to the rate, on the other.

We believe that the more frequent reviews under a three-year cycle should lead to smaller adjustments in the rate on each review than that under the five-year cycle proposed in Amendment 62. This should reduce concerns about the size of any change in the rate as a result of the review, which should also reduce any temptation to distort the litigation process in the hope of benefiting from a significant advantageous change to the rate. We continue to believe that a three-year maximum review period represents a reasonable compromise between the different views held in this House and outside it.

Amendments 72 and 75 would shorten the period within which a review of the discount rate must be completed, from 180 to 120 days. Amendment 73 would shorten the time available to the expert panel to deliver its response to the Lord Chancellor from 90 days to 75 days. We fully recognise the need to ensure that reviews are conducted promptly and do not take up an excessive amount of time. However, it is equally important that sufficient time is available to enable the review to be properly informed and to give the expert panel and the Lord Chancellor an adequate period to consider all the issues that may arise.

We have drawn on the experience of reviewing the rate under the present law in proposing the time periods now in the Bill. It may be helpful to explain how the 180-day period allowed for in the Bill is made up. Turning to the first 90-day period, each review will require the analysis of up-to-date evidence on investment returns and investment behaviour to ensure that a fully informed decision is reached. The expert panel will need to consider this evidence in detail and prepare a thorough report for the Lord Chancellor. We consider that the 90-day period allowed for in the Bill represents a challenging but reasonable deadline for the panel to provide this. Turning to the second 90-day period, the Lord Chancellor will in turn need to consider the panel’s report and, as is the case under the current framework, consult HM Treasury. As the panel will be introducing new expertise into the review process, it is important that the other parties involved have the benefit of its considered views. Again, we consider that the 90-day period allowed for in the Bill is reasonable for this part of the review.

We therefore consider that the overall period of 180 days is reasonable to ensure that proper preparation of the review and careful consideration of the issues can take place. A significantly shorter period, such as that proposed in the amendment, could reduce the thoroughness and effectiveness of the review process. On the basis of the explanations I have given, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful, or fairly grateful, to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is entirely at a loss to understand the purpose of my amendment. Quite a number of other people seem to favour five years, so it is not a complete outlier. In fact, as many seem to favour five years as three years or any other period.

As my noble friend conceded, whatever period is selected is in a sense a compromise. It must be arbitrary. I am grateful to my noble friend for answering not only this group of amendments but an earlier group when dealing with the mechanism of the time limits for the Lord Chancellor to go through the process of conducting the review and appointing a panel. We have already been told that our suggestions are inappropriate in that respect, but it is nice to be told again. That was clearly in the speaking note.

As to the question of why three years, my noble friend said that there may be smaller adjustments after three years rather than five. With great respect, that depends on the economic climate. There may be some enormous economic event—we are not unfamiliar with those, sadly—which means that there could be a dramatic change in a short period. I am unconvinced by that argument.

My main point was gaming. I have personal evidence and experience that it is going on at the moment. Clearly, it is anecdotal, but I suggest that three years is definitely the wrong period. I will withdraw my amendment now. I shall do my best to accumulate better evidence to try to convince the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, among others, and the Government, that five years is a better period. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we support the thrust of this amendment. Matters would have been helped had there been a stand-in panel in the first place.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, Amendment 89 would allow the Lord Chancellor to establish a panel informally before the Bill has received Royal Assent. As we indicated in responding to earlier amendments, the Government share the objective of ensuring that the first review of the rate is begun and completed as promptly as is practicable. With that in mind, we have committed in response to the Justice Select Committee report not only to issue a further call for evidence to obtain any additional relevant information but to commission the Government Actuary’s Department to carry out further research and analysis.

The solution proposed in the amendment to the question of how to get the panel working at the earliest possible date is certainly imaginative, but it assumes that there will be a material difference in the time by which the proposed “shadow panel” and the “real panel” will be able to carry out that work. That is not necessarily the case. The panel will need evidence and analysis to carry out its work. That will take time. There are also the considerations that the process of recruitment should be in accordance with the principles of public appointments and that the review process must be open and transparent.

I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion, but I do not think that in a subject as sensitive as the setting of the personal injury discount rate I can accept it. I can, however, reassure him that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the first review of the rate following the passage of the Bill will be conducted as swiftly as possible, while also on as fully informed a basis as it possibly can be. In the light of this, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.