Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Faulks

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

I entirely accept that it does, but ultimately the question of what the rate is is determined by experts, taking into account the factors which are, I agree, set out in the Bill. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says, but it still seems to me that that is perhaps dangerously close to the judges getting involved in an area which might render them subject to criticism.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

I will speak extremely briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It seems to me that the Lord Chancellor would, very properly, have two questions in life that he would want to ask of an expert. The first is: “Do we need a review?” The second is: “Please will you conduct the review?” However, unless there is a standing panel, who on earth can he ask the first question of? I assume that he will not have anyone within the Ministry of Justice to whom he can turn and say: “Are we in circumstances where we need a review?” That is, in itself, a powerful argument for having a standing function that would allow him some access to expertise in this difficult and esoteric area. So, if the Minister is not minded to be amenable to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, how will that question be answered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this amendment is in identical terms to that which I advanced in Committee. This time I have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. In view of the fact that there are no changes in the nature of the amendment, I think I can be brief in outlining its purpose.

The purpose is to ensure that the reviews are regular—indeed, that is the purpose of the Bill—which is particularly important in the light of the fact that Lord Chancellors so rarely exercised the power in the previous 20 years or so. The question is: how regular? I respectfully submit that the three-year period is too short, and a five-year period would be much better.

I say this based not least on personal experience at the moment and having had conversations with people on, as it were, both sides of the fence. When you are expecting a change one way or another, as is the position now—because the market suggests, as the noble Earl pointed out, that there probably will be a change, let us say from minus 0.7% to plus 1%—one side or another will see it to their advantage either to bring forward a claim or delay it to take advantage of the putative date of the decision.

This process is perfectly legitimate and part of the hurly-burly of litigation—there are lots of uncertainties in litigation—but this one is of particular significance where large sums of money are concerned. I am not disparaging anyone involved in the litigation process. But if the change happens every five years, there will be less of this gaming than if it happens every three years, just as everyone says about the last year of a four-year term of a President—nothing much happens. A lot of positioning will be taking place before the change.

This is a view expressed widely in the profession. I therefore ask my noble and learned friend carefully to consider accepting the amendment, or at least coming back at Third Reading with something that reflects those considerations. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in his amendments. I should explain why I did not support them in Committee. In Committee, I listened to two eloquent speeches—one from the noble Lord and one from the Minister. They went carefully through the arguments about gaming and not gaming. I thought it was very interesting. I have a lot of knowledge in this area, but I did not actually know. I then spoke to a large number of practitioners on the insurance side to try to form my own view on whether three or five years was right for gaming. I am afraid I strongly formed the view that five years was right and therefore strongly believe that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is on to something that would greatly benefit all concerned. That is why I support the amendment.

More importantly, I have tabled Amendments 68, 70 and 71, which are to do with the timing of the second review. Broadly, they try to bring the timing in from what I thought was 180 days to what I thought was120 days. Those thoughts were prior to the arrival from the Minister’s office of the draft terms of reference of the expert panel, which I have in my hand. It is very interesting because the expert panel is established at the very moment that the review trigger is pulled—or, I suppose, immediately after. In fact, in a section entitled “Preparation”, before the review is triggered there is a call for evidence, which asks for all sorts of evidence all round.

That raises two issues for me. The first is that it extends the period of uncertainty. There is a 180-day review period and the call for evidence period, which I assume is at least 60 days—probably 90 days—to increase the level of uncertainty. During this uncertain period, the people who suffer are not the banks of lawyers on either side of the argument; the fee clock is still running. The people who suffer are the individuals who have the catastrophic injuries. So I worry about that.

The second thing I worry about is that if I were an expert, I would not want someone else to draft my call for evidence. I probably do not need the call for evidence because I am an expert. The idea that the poor old Ministry of Justice will be able to ask for all this expert evidence is wrong. The Ministry of Justice is not full of this sort of specialist in the esoteric areas around the setting of a discount rate. I do not believe that is a wise thing to do, so will the Minister look again at the draft terms of reference? Maybe, when we have our coffee to discuss timings, we could have a short session on the terms of reference so that we can try to align this. The basic point behind Amendments 68, 70 and 71 is a desire to allow enough time for a panel of experts very well versed in discount rates to arrive at the correct answer, without extending that time unreasonably. The uncertainty is bad for the victims of the catastrophic injuries.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Faulks

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Baroness is quite right with her mote and beam analogy. We must think about London, as my noble friend Lord Naseby, said. In 2016, David Cameron announced his intention in respect of anti-corruption and a register of beneficial interests. Since then we have had the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and this Bill. In both of those, my noble friend Lord Hodgson and I were keen to ensure that the Government did their best to stem the flood of dirty money, particularly into property money in London, by setting up a register of beneficial ownership which, when combined with unexplained wealth orders, might really do something to prevent what is a real obscenity about London property at the moment. So much money is flooding into the market yet so few people who start their work in London can afford to live. That is the mote that we have in London.

I wanted to press the matter to a vote, because our intention was to hurry this up, but I was met with formidable opposition from the Government, explaining how difficult the whole thing was. Finally, just before a vote might otherwise have taken place, I was reassured that there was much activity in this regard and there would be regular updates and a ministerial Statement. Sadly, the earliest the register would be legislation-ready was 2021—so five years after David Cameron’s summit. Here we have an amendment put down in the Commons after very little of the preliminaries, as has been quite rightly pointed out, with no consultation and nothing of the sort that one would expect with such a radical procedure. It states:

“The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 December 2020, prepare a draft Order in Council”.


It is a “must”, not a “may”. The only part of this amendment which is, perhaps, acceptable, is the very first part, describing the reasonable assistance to be given to the Governments of the British Overseas Territories. However, I apprehend that that is being—and has been—given for some considerable time. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Naseby on only one point: the Minister, not only today but in responding to the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on Report, vigorously defended the position of the Government and of the British Overseas Territories in their attempt to comply with the natural desire that we all have to stamp out corruption.

This amendment goes on to require an Order in Council to be laid before Parliament, but then provides that it ceases to have effect,

“if not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of 28 days”.

I wonder if a resolution of that sort would meet with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, having regard to the hasty way in which this amendment was introduced and to the real difficulties that it will cause to our friends in the British Overseas Territories.

This amendment is ill thought out, no doubt born out of an entirely proper desire to stem the flood of corruption. However, in so doing it damages our relationship with the British Overseas Territories at a time when we need all the friends we can get outside this country. The amendment asks them to do what is required in a timeframe which is much shorter than that for this country: the mote and beam analogy is entirely appropriate.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House, particularly those in respect of financial services. I support Amendment 22A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. How well we know what a stramash would result if Westminster sought to legislate for Scotland, in a matter of devolved competence, without even consulting the Scottish Parliament. Parliament developed the Sewel convention to cope with this very situation. We have heard, in a very powerful speech, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and others just how this convention now expressly extends to our overseas territories.

The overseas territories are proud and sophisticated countries and deserve our respect. Constitutionally, our respect includes conventions. Money laundering is, rightly, a devolved matter for them. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands are large and sophisticated financial centres with well-respected regulators. Accordingly, to legislate without even consulting these Parliaments is conventionally wrong. This is why I feel that the Sewel convention should apply. Westminster has the power to intervene and should exercise this only when things are badly awry. However, evidence of “awryness” is, in fact, the other way.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, Pierre Moscovici delivered a report last year, and this was adopted by the European Council on 5 December. On page 5 of that 35-page report, the Council affirms that,

“these actions collectively taken by EU Member States are in line with the agenda promoted by the G20, the OECD and other international fora”.

None of the overseas territories is on the blacklist.

Annexe 2 of the adopted conclusions, which was updated twice in March this year, lists countries in various categories that have agreed to make changes by the end of this year; it is a large list. In other words, provided that changes are made by those countries, in the EU Council’s view they will be fully compliant with EU, G20 and OECD thinking in this area. Only four of the 14 overseas territories feature on the list of co-operative countries. The other 10 do not; in other words, they are absolutely clean in the eyes of Pierre Moscovici and his very substantial and hard-working staff. In that respect, the 10 that are clean are doing rather better than Switzerland or Hong Kong, which both appear on the list. Indeed, 29 countries are making changes to improve transparency; none of the overseas territories is listed. Twenty-seven countries are making changes to anti-BEPs measures, which are sophisticated corporate tax dodges; none of the overseas territories is listed. Twenty-eight countries, including Switzerland and Hong Kong, are making changes to amend or abolish harmful tax regimes. None of the overseas territories is listed. Nine countries, including Bermuda, Anguilla, the BVI and the Cayman Islands, have agreed to,

“address concerns relating to economic substance”.

Among those nine countries are Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, the only time their names appear in the annexe at all. Those three islands do not appear in the Commons amendment and, as other noble Lords have observed, I cannot believe that is fair.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Faulks

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

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I begin with my declaration of interest, one I gave in Committee and at Second Reading. It is perhaps of some relevance to the debate that we are currently engaged in that I have for some years been involved in claims of the utmost severity and I am to this day instructed for defendants, particularly the National Health Service, the Medical Defence Union and insurers, but also claimants.

I move Amendment 56 in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is not in his place because he had an unavoidable engagement. He knows essentially what I shall say. I cannot claim a total endorsement of any comment I may make in advance, but I can say that he supports the general tone of what I shall say in support of the amendment.

The desirability of periodical payments is clear, and has been well articulated around the House today—but not, I agree with the Minister, in all cases. The Government have very much acknowledged the need to encourage them but have so far not included in the Bill any specific provisions which would have that effect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, explained the difficulties of estimating life expectation, and he is of course right—although it may have passed his experience and practice that there is an enormous amount of literature now, particularly from the United States of America, in which very refined estimations of life expectation are provided to the court, particularly in the case of the most seriously disabled, so that you are able to enter an algorithm to see the likelihood of reaching a certain age. Having said that, it may well be the case that there is a spurious accuracy about that documentation, in view of the fact that the expectation of life of a seriously brain-damaged child, for example, has radically increased over the time when I have been in practice. An estimation made 20 years ago would simply not be right now for a child with exactly the same injuries.

Section 2(1) of the Damages Act 1996 gave the courts a power for the first time to order periodical payments, but could not do so unless the parties consented. That was preceded by a structured settlement agreement that had been reached in a particular case; it had attracted much attention and, therefore, Parliament intervened to give judges in appropriate circumstances a power of that sort. Then by Section 100 of the Courts Act 2003 the courts were enabled to order periodical payments, if they thought it appropriate. However, my experience is that they do not generally do so. In fact, I have never heard of the courts ordering periodical payments where a defendant is a secure provider but one side or another objects to such an order.

One consequence of the drastic lowering of the discount rate is that periodical payments have become much less attractive. With such a generous discount rate and the consequent rise in lump sums, there is very little incentive on a claimant to seek periodical payments when he or she can do better even by cautious investment in the market. We do not know what adjustment to the discount rate may be or, indeed, when any such adjustment may be made. Even if there is an increase to +1% as opposed to -0.75%, it may not be enough to discourage lump sums as opposed to periodical payments. It should be remembered that before the case of Wells v Wells in 1998, and for many years, the discount rate was +4.5%. It was lowered to 2.5% in 2001 to reflect the decision in Wells.

Amendment 56 is intended to provide some legislative encouragement to a party to seek periodical payments. The assumption by the courts currently is of a claimant as an incredibly cautious investor; in future, he will be regarded as a slightly less cautious investor by virtue of this Bill. Surely, if an investor is really anxious to avoid the uncertainties of the future, the best way in which he or she can do that is by an order for periodical payments with appropriate indexation. It used to be said, and indeed it has been said this afternoon, that the one thing that one knows about a lump sum is that it is either too much or too little. Inevitable uncertainties about life expectation mean that the degree of inaccuracy may be profound. Surely, then, if a sensible offer of periodical payments is made by a defendant and turned down by a claimant in favour of a lump sum, it indicates that the claimant is not nearly so risk averse as the legislation and the discount rate presumes that he is.

It is, of course, entirely a matter for the claimant what he or she wants to do with his money, subject only to the unlikely intervention of the courts to order periodical payments. It seems to me, therefore, that it should be open to the court to vary the discount rate to reflect the fact that, by turning down a reasonable offer of periodical payments, a claimant has evinced an intention to be rather more adventurous than the legislation presumes that he will be. This could either have the result of reducing the overall sum, thus making periodical payments more attractive in the light of a different discount rate, or of promoting settlements, factoring in the possibility of a court varying the discount rate in the light of sensible offers of periodical payments. One way or another, it may go some way to redressing the tendency away from periodical payments in favour of lump sums. I do not think it falls foul of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, indicated: that Parliament should not tell judges of great experience precisely how to reflect these principles in an individual case.

The other part of the amendment concerns the particular nature of the loss in respect of which damages are sought. In substantial claims, there are a number of different heads of damage, and it may be that with some heads a different discount rate is appropriate. At the moment, the Bill talks of “classes” of case, not of different types of loss within the same case. In large claims there will be many heads of loss. They will include the cost of future care—usually the largest amount—the cost of specialised equipment; adaptations to accommodation; therapeutic and other medical treatment and loss of earnings, to name some of the main established heads of damage. Different considerations as to the appropriate discount rate may apply to different heads of loss.

In 2010, sitting in Guernsey, Jonathan Sumption QC, before his elevation to the Supreme Court, applied different discount rates to loss of earnings claims from those which he applied to other heads. That decision is not, of course, binding on our courts but it does illustrate that it may be appropriate to vary discount rates depending on the type of loss. This is done in a number of other jurisdictions.

My amendment originally contained a further factor to be taken into account in varying the discount rate, namely if a court concluded that a claimant would not in fact seek to recover a particular cost privately but would rely on the state. Very often, an award is made on the assumption that a claimant will, for example, seek to have his medical treatment and care provided privately, when that may not in fact be the case. In certain extreme cases, one is much better off receiving care for complex conditions through the state rather than, as it were, setting up a private hospital. This part of the amendment was initially accepted by the Table Office, but I was then told that it was outside the scope of the Bill. I am bound to accept that ruling but, as other noble Lords have said—and may say again—it is important that an outmoded provision, namely Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, is reviewed, and probably repealed, as soon as possible. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly on Amendment 57. This is merely a drafting suggestion on an issue where there is common ground with the Government. Trouble arises if you use the word “classes” to an insurance-based person like me, for whom it has a different meaning. To me, it means things like motor insurance, medical negligence or employer’s liability. I want to make sure that it is clear that one can not only follow the jurisprudence of Jonathan Sumption sitting in Guernsey—as has just been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—and vary things a little bit by head, but also in terms of what I call the yield curve. The yield curve is a very simple thing: the longer you invest the money, generally, the higher the interest rate you get.

For instance, if you invest the money for a month with the US Government at the moment you will get -0.25% or so; if you invest it for 10 years you will get 3% or so. On the whole, there is a gentle yield curve. That is reflected in Hong Kong and in Ontario, where they have a system of discount rates. In Hong Kong, if you will have future needs for between nought and five years in the court’s assessment, the discount rate used is 0.5%, between five and 10 years it is 1%, and over 10 years it is 2.5%. In Ontario they split it into two rather than three, and again it is based on the number of years of your future needs, which is assessed by the court: between nought and 15 years it is 0% at the moment, and over 15 years it is 2.5%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, we have had a debate effectively asking the Government to get on with the process of fixing the discount rate. We have now had a debate about who should be on the panel and how they should go about exercising the function of deciding the discount rate. This group of amendments is to do with a shorter, but very important, issue—namely, the regularity of reviews.

It is plain, I suggest, that there must be regular reviews, and much more regular than in the past. One of the problems that existed, and still exists until the law is changed, is that there was no particular period in which the Lord Chancellor had to exercise his or her power to alter the discount rate. It was very rarely done, not least because of the potentially significant political consequences of the decision. When, finally, the then Lord Chancellor, Ms Truss, altered the discount rate in 2017, it had the most dramatic effect. While more regular reviews are desirable, the question is: how regular should they be?

The problem about having a review every three years is that parties to litigation will have a quite understandable tendency to try to guess the outcome of the determination of the new discount rate and to game the system. I do not wish to imply anything inappropriate about such gaming; it may well be done by either side in a dispute, and is simply a factor in the uncertainty involved in negotiations, where a party thinks it would be to their advantage either to wait until after determination of the discount rate or to ensure that a trial or settlement is concluded before the discount rate is altered.

Large claims take some time to get to court. A brain-damaged baby does not have to begin a claim—or, at least, a claim does not have to be begun on their behalf—until after he or she attains their majority at the age of 18. The normal limitation period for personal injuries is three years, but there are exceptions in terms of date of knowledge and, under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, there is the power to disapply the limitation period in certain circumstances.

In a complicated criminal negligence case, it may be a number of years before there is clarity in terms of causation and, indeed, prognosis, once all the various experts’ reports have been assembled and exchanged, and there have been meetings of appropriate experts. There is then the problem of finding a court date for trial.

There is thus plenty of time and room for manoeuvring. In my view, a three-year period is definitely too short. I would have favoured, if I had been asked, a seven-year period, but I suggest in this amendment five years as a compromise. If any evidence is needed of the gaming of the system, it is apparent now. That evidence may be anecdotal, but there is such an accumulation of this anecdotal evidence that it simply cannot be ignored. Parties are either anxious to conclude their cases before the putative date of the variation of the discount rate or to delay matters. There is much speculation as to when this Bill will become an Act. I fear that such manoeuvring will take place almost continuously if the three-year period is maintained.

I therefore ask my noble and learned friend the Minister seriously to consider altering the period to five years, which will mitigate to some degree the uncertainty that prevails on discount changes. Uncertainty, I accept, is inevitable in litigation, but where there is such a degree of uncertainty, with potentially large consequences in the size of a claim, it militates against settlement. Settlement of claims avoiding court hearings is surely desirable and unless the Government change the frequency of the review, I fear that there will be a very real increase in the number of claims that do not resolve themselves. Alternatively, there will be a number of applications to court to try to adjourn matters or accelerate them to reflect some perceived advantage to one side or another. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendments 72, 73 and 75. Essentially, the points I made about the initial review apply here as well, and I shall not repeat them. But it seems to me that the sparking off of a review within a review period —not right at the end—because something has made the Lord Chancellor feel that there had better be a review now indicates that there is probably a need for one, either up or down. Therefore, I feel that we should trim the period of the review down. This is only a discount rate—it is not a very big thing and can be done relatively quickly. The three amendments merely suggest a way of trimming it down. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that when we have that very large cup of tea, we kick this around as well. It would be a great shame if future trimming reduced the rate heavily. There may be people whose cases are being settled at the wrong rate, so we have a duty to try to do things at a reasonable pace.

[Lord Faulks]

Does the noble Earl not accept that there is a risk that if there is such a frequent review, those who are parties to litigation will simply feel that they are in a permanent state of uncertainty about what the discount rate may be? They have to rely, for at least a reasonable period, on a certain discount rate.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

I am sorry if I have confused the noble Lord. I am merely saying that once the review has been sparked off by the Lord Chancellor’s decision—it does not matter what the periodicity is; I was very interested in the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord—it should take place at a reasonable pace, because somebody is suffering if it is done slowly. That is the purpose of trying to trim the rates. This is not difficult; one discount rate has been set by a group of people who will have exactly the right sort of skills. I therefore think it can be done a bit quicker but, as I said, it is probably best discussed not in the Chamber but with the Minister.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Faulks

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

The amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, seems at least to question the underlying premise behind these reforms. I respectfully suggest that the Government have established the premise. The Minister set out the Government’s case, as it were, at Second Reading, and the statistics seem to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that there is widespread abuse of the whole whiplash claims system. The solution, though it is inevitably somewhat rough and ready, is that there should in effect be a reduction in what claimants might have been able to claim under the system that currently obtains, although that is in relation only to damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and excludes loss of earnings or any other consequential losses. It is a reduction but a fairly modest one and we are speaking of injuries at the lower end of the scale, although I do not downplay the discomfort that can follow from whiplash injuries. However, the purpose behind the reforms is surely, first, to provide certainty and, secondly, to make the awards reasonably modest so as to provide less of an incentive for those who would seek to make fraudulent claims. That, combined with the ban on medical officers, should fulfil what is, as the noble and learned Lord rightly says, essentially a policy decision.

In effect, the losers about whom we should be concerned are those genuine claimants, as opposed to the many who are not genuine, who I accept will get a lesser sum than they would otherwise have obtained. In the round, though, I suggest that this is a sensible policy decision. The House may have in mind that when these reforms were initially trailed by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne—and it came from the Treasury rather than the Ministry of Justice—the suggestion was that there would be no damages at all for whiplash injuries. This is a modification of that change, and of course there is the right of the judges to have an uplift in circumstances that we may be exploring later. Still, I suggest that it would be a mistake to pass these matters back to the judges. The Judicial College guidelines are in fact an extrapolation from individual cases decided by judges. They then, as it were, create a form of certainty, although they are variable according to individual cases.

I think the Government have made a case. They have to grasp the nettle, and they have done so in this case.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, for framing a good debate in this important area, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his very clear opening remarks. There seem to be three issues here: first, who should set the tariff; secondly, where it should be set out; and, thirdly, how it should be amended.

I regard the tariff as being very much a political matter. The problem that we are trying to cope with is a widespread low-level fraud that is afflicting our country. It is easy money offered by the claims industry for people following what are probably genuine motor accidents. I read out earlier a quite shocking quote from one of the leading people in the claims industry:

“Even if you don’t experience any symptoms straightaway, don’t rule out the possibility that you’ve suffered this type of injury”.


I feel that as it is a political and social problem it must have a political solution, and it cannot really have a judicial solution.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who has lent me his copy of the Judicial College guidelines. The introduction states:

“Assessing the appropriate level of any award remains the prerogative of the courts, which are not constrained by any range identified in this book, since the figures within any such range are persuasive, not obligatory, and merely represent what other judges have been awarding for similar injuries”.


Therefore, the whole basis on which the Judicial College has been gathering figures and making judgments is not the sort of basis on which in any event one would want to build a tariff construction. It is the wrong starting material, although it is an interesting book. Accordingly, I feel that the Lord Chancellor must be the person who takes a decision about what will be contained in the tariff.

In respect of my other two questions, I return to the 22nd Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which considered this issue at paragraph 13 and stated:

“In our view it would be an inappropriate delegation of power for damages for whiplash injury to be set in a tariff made by Ministerial regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. The tariff should be set out on the face of the Bill, albeit amendable by affirmative statutory instrument”.


I feel that answers both my questions. I urge the Minister to consider having a tariff on the face of the Bill and to ensure that it is amendable with suitable parliamentary oversight.