Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Beecham Excerpts

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

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

I must apologise to the noble Lord for delaying his expectations slightly, and declare my interest as an unpaid consultant in my old firm of solicitors.

It is clear that we must have a proper definition. It is equally clear that the definition ought to be provided by a medical source. The groupings of this rather long day are such that the recommendation that I shall be making in the next group is relevant to this first group, in that the responsibility for defining a whiplash injury should be on the Chief Medical Officer and the definition incorporated into primary or secondary legislation. That takes the decision away from politicians. I disagree with the noble Lord—I do not think that the definition should be a political decision: it should emanate from the medical profession and be embodied in legislation. An amendment to that effect on Report would perhaps be helpful.

It is clear that there are problems; nobody denies that. There is an argument about the extent to which the current system is being abused, but any abuse is unacceptable and reflects on innocent people who have suffered genuine injury. Their cases need to be dealt with properly. So there has to be change. However, with due respect to those who tabled these amendments, who may well have drawn on medical advice, we should at some point incorporate a requirement for that medical advice to emanate from a medical source—I have suggested the Chief Medical Officer but it could be another source—rather than be determined by politicians.

[Lord Faulks]

The term “whiplash” is pretty loose. What is the noble Lord inviting medical experts to do to interpret a term that is not really medical?

[Lord Beecham]

There surely has to be a medical definition—and where better to get it from? The medical profession deals with injuries that are labelled “whiplash injuries”. There may be some argument about the definition, but surely it can be decided only on the basis of medical skills.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the proposition that is highly desirable for the definition used as the basis for later provisions in this part of the Bill to be on the face of the Bill. The difficulty I have had so far is in identifying what we want to do. It is the area of exaggerated claims, or something of that sort, that underlies the Government’s proposals. I agree that it must be, ultimately, a medical definition, because a medical report saying that you have this injury is an essential requirement for you to come under this part of the Bill.

The difficulty, however, is that the doctors have to know where these exaggerations take place. I have been instructed by people who suggest that if you go for the back, and the rest, you are extending the thing beyond the real position. I have, therefore, some sympathy with the amendment restricting that, which I think is to be moved or spoken to later. I do not, however, profess to know exactly what the problem is, in the sense of the area of medical expertise that is being used by the claimant industry to exaggerate claims. That is their idea: to exaggerate these claims and ask for more than they are worth. As I said at Second Reading, I have some experience long past of the difficulty of actually quantifying the correct amount for these injuries, particularly if they are serious—and they can be quite serious, I think. This is my problem and I would be glad of help when the Minister comes to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “, back or shoulder”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name. I have already effectively, I hope, spoken to Amendment 5. Amendment 4 is a probing amendment that seeks to alter the definition of a whiplash injury to confine it to neck injuries. I accept the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made about the precise definition, and also the fact that I am effectively in the position that I was questioning before, of not having the medical authority to give a prescription. That underlines the need for independent medical advice as to what constitutes the kind of injury that needs to be covered.

Amendment 5, to which I referred before, would require the definition to be provided by the Chief Medical Officer. There may be other professional sources that would be as effective, but the independence and status of the Chief Medical Officer strikes me as highly relevant.

The other amendments in this group to which I will refer are, particularly, Amendments 8 and 10, which suggest a new tariff for 12 months rather than the two years in the Bill. I understand that the vast majority of cases are within that one-year period, so to extend it to two years seems somewhat invidious, given that there has to be proof of the effect of the accident. Two years is a long time to be subjected to, for what would be a pretty minimal level of compensation provided for in the tariff. I hope that that would improve the Bill somewhat.

In relation to Amendment 9, sub-paragraph (ii) seems superfluous because it requires the claimant to have mitigated the damage suffered, but in common law the plaintiff has to demonstrate that he has done precisely that. Sub-paragraph (ii) does not seem to add anything to the current legal position and, for that reason, it should be removed.

Amendments 15 to 20 are in this group. They would remove references to psychological injury from Clauses 2 and 3. That is a matter which we feel should be dealt with in the ordinary way. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful for that intervention. My point is that if someone has been genuinely injured, whether in the course of employment or not in the course of employment, they are entitled to make a claim, and nothing should preclude that, regardless of whether they receive a message in the current form or in an amended form. It seems to me that it would be inappropriate to make a distinction between the circumstances in which you may or may not suffer a whiplash injury. My point was simply that if there is an amendment to the law, those seeking to encourage not the genuine claimants—of which there are certainly some—but those who are not genuine may revise their message to take into account the revision that we make in the law. Of course I am not against genuine claims. On the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson, although I understand the disaggregation that lies at the heart of their amendment, I am not for the moment persuaded that this is not a matter that is catered for under Clause 2(3) and (4). I shall listen with interest to what my noble and learned friend says.

[Lord Beecham]

Perhaps I may invite the noble Lord to refer to the provisions that refer to MedCo. He talked about doctors’ reports as if they could be made by rather unscrupulous doctors at the behest of a client. Would not use of the MedCo system pretty well ensure that the reports would be valid and authentic?

[Lord Faulks]

The MedCo system has contributed very considerably to the improvement in the standards of medical reporting. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with it, it was a system to prevent what was undoubtedly an abuse of the system by some doctors, to allow the random allocation of medical experts to deal with whiplash injuries. It is certainly an improvement. My point is that there is still a risk in certain cases of there not being reliable medical evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord’s assistance. In the past his interventions have not always been of assistance, but they certainly are on this occasion. I would go further and suggest that it would make no more sense to exempt people who were driving red cars at the time of the accident. It is a distinction without a difference; it is as simple as that. That is why we do not consider this to be a helpful line of inquiry, and it is not one that we intend to pursue further.

With regard to the other amendments that were spoken to in this group, I have endeavoured to address the points made. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, about the potential for anomalies where someone suffers a whiplash injury and other forms of injury as a result of the same accident. That is there, and there is no obvious answer to that. Nevertheless, the Bill is structured with the intention of addressing the vice we are really concerned with here and which is generally acknowledged to exist. In these circumstances, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Employment Tribunal Hearings

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to reduce the backlog of Employment Tribunal hearings that has arisen since the Supreme Court ruling in July 2017 that the high level of fees previously levied was unlawful.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, we wish to ensure that employment cases are dealt with swiftly and effectively. We are taking action to deal with the tribunals’ increased case load. This includes setting aside extra days for judges to hear tribunal cases, as well as developing plans to recruit more tribunal judges. We continue to monitor the situation closely.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this issue was drawn to my attention by a newspaper headline—in the Times, not the Morning Star—entitled “Tribunals gridlocked by surge in claims”. Among the many cases cited by the trade union USDAW and Thompsons Solicitors was a case in London, which happened in November 2017 and will be heard in January 2019, and a case in Watford, listed for a three-day hearing in January 2018 but postponed until September due to “having overbooked and a lack of judicial resources”. Is the Minister aware that ACAS conciliators have reported that they are overwhelmed by the increase in claims? For example, solicitors in Newcastle have been unable to get through to speak to anyone for two weeks. In detail, what steps do the Government intend to take, and within what timescale, to ensure that the maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” is no longer exemplified in the workings of the employment tribunal system as a result of what the Supreme Court ruled was its unlawful and unconstitutional imposition of fees of up to £1,200?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

On the last point, the Supreme Court determined that it was lawful to charge fees for the tribunal; it was the level of fees that was considered disproportionate. The time taken for tribunal cases was in the region of 26 to 28 weeks per case for resolution. That has increased to about 33 weeks because there was a significant increase in applications to the tribunals after the decision in July 2017. We have put in place a process for recruiting a further 54 tribunal judges for employment tribunals, which should increase capacity by about 44%. In addition, we are now taking steps to increase the number of fee-paid judges in the tribunal system; indeed, fee-paid judge sittings have increased by 180% since July 2017. We are also conscious of the need to employ additional staff in employment tribunals; that is being undertaken at the present time. I apologise for the length of my answer, but I felt I should give the noble Lord’s question a full response.

Probation: Voluntary Sector

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the community rehabilitation companies faced unexpected difficulties when it was found that the financial float of those companies was less than had been planned for. We have already discussed the terms of the contracts with the CRCs and they are the subject of further consideration. We are certainly determined that there should be a diverse provision so far as probation is concerned, and one that does involve third sector organisations.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

The chief inspector has stated that the present system is fundamentally flawed and that she doubts whether the service can ever be restored to the standard we should accept. Will the Government now join with her, the relevant trade unions and the judiciary to examine how the performance and reputation of a critical part of our system can be restored?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, with regard to the present provision it should be noted that the community rehabilitation companies have reduced the number of people reoffending. Indeed, our reforms mean that they are monitoring 40,000 offenders who had previously been released with no supervision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the flow of work between the NPS and the CRCs was indeed lower than the Government had anticipated when they implemented these measures.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, could the Minister perhaps answer the question that I put to him? Will the Government sit down with the trade unions and the judiciary to deal with the crisis in the system?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, with respect to this reference to crisis, I remind the noble Lord of what the chief inspector said in her report:

“We found that the quality of services was variable, but reasonable overall”.


We aim to improve that. We do not intend to sit down at present with particular parties, but we are addressing the recommendations in the chief inspector’s report, which is the proper way forward.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Beecham Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by referring to my interest as an unpaid consultant with my former solicitors’ firm, and to a paternal interest, inasmuch as my daughter is a barrister and a part-time deputy district judge.

This Bill, as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, covers two discrete areas of personal injury law: claims for damages for whiplash injuries, and the way compensation for financial loss in serious injury claims, by way of lump sums, is to be calculated. The former is, in effect, a response to exaggerated claims. Exaggeration is, however, not confined—as the media, the insurance industry and the Government would have us believe—to claimants and their advisers. A small number of insurance companies, operating under a variety of labels in the market, constantly claim that the number and cost of damages claims for whiplash injuries is rising, with a consequential impact on premiums, which would otherwise be lower.

We are all familiar with the benevolent intentions of the industry and its heartfelt aspiration to reduce premiums. A degree of scepticism about the industry’s case, is, however, justified. In his seminal report, Common Sense, Common Safety, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who it was a pleasure to see in the House yesterday, declared:

“The problem of the compensation culture prevalent in society today is, however, one of perception rather than reality”.


Road traffic accident claims have fallen by 14% since 2013 and by 10% in the past year, while last year the number of claims relative to the number of vehicles on the road was the lowest since 2008. Interestingly, the latest data published—just today—by the Compensation Recovery Unit records a fall in the number of motor cases registered to the unit from 780,000 in 2016-17 to 650,000 in 2017-18. The numbers between 2010-11 and 2017-18 ranged from 828,000 to 761,000. Settlements recorded by the CRU were, at 683,000, the lowest since 2011. Moreover, the cost of such claims in the UK is in the lower half of the European league table of such costs.

There is a legitimate concern, to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, about the activities of claims management companies—and indeed of “McKenzie friends”, a growing feature in the courts these days in this and other areas—about which little or no action has so far been taken, either by the Government, or, in relation to connections between solicitors’ firms and such companies by the Law Society, which I find somewhat deplorable.

In any event, in practice the proposals will impose a tariff system for compensation for pain and discomfort ranging from £235 for up to three months to £3,910 for 18 to 24 months—respectively 76% and 49% less than the guidelines prescribed by the Judicial College. Crucially, the system is entirely based on the timescale, and not the severity, of the pain and suffering endured. These replace, for road traffic cases, payments which the MoJ—without adducing any evidence—regards as “out of all proportion” to the level of injury suffered. Having said that, I welcome the provision that no case should be settled without a medical report.

Someone suffering a comparable injury sustained otherwise than from a road traffic accident—for example, a workplace accident—with effects lasting two years, could recover £3,000 more in damages and the costs of the claim, which, in RTA cases, would in future have to be paid out of the damages and not by the defendant.

Some noble Lords may be aware that a few weeks ago I sustained an injury, which left me with a colourful presentation around my eye, when I was thrown to the floor in a Tube train that made a violent, sudden halt. It was not a soft-tissue injury but if it had been—I suppose it could have been in those circumstances—any claim would not have been affected by the provisions of the Bill, whereas it would if I had been a passenger in a road vehicle. Some friends of mine recently experienced precisely that kind of accident. The question arises: why should comparable injuries not attract comparable awards, and comparable recovery of the cost of a claim, whether they are incurred in a road traffic accident or any other accident for which a defendant is deemed liable?

There are, moreover, serious questions to be asked not just about the scale of damages deemed recoverable but about how the level of damages is to be determined and by whom. The 22nd report of the Delegated Powers Committee asks some salient questions and makes some powerful comments on the way the Government are proceeding. It poses what it describes as two central questions:

“What is meant by ‘whiplash injury’?”,


and:

“By how much are awards of damages to be reduced?”.


The answer it divines is:

“‘Whiplash injury’ means whatever the Lord Chancellor says it will mean, in regulations to be made by him or her at some future date”,


with “a full definition” emerging once the Bill is enacted and not before. It also observes:

“Given the complex physical and psychological components of whiplash injury, it is not satisfactory that these matters should be left to regulations rather than being subject to a rigorous debate in Parliament”—


a refrain all too frequently heard in this House in relation to secondary legislation. As to the second question, about the quantum of damages, the committee points out that the reduction,

“will be whatever the Lord Chancellor says it will be, in regulations to be made … at some future date”.

The Government pray in aid the need for what they say is,

“flexibility ... to reflect possible changes in society’s perception of the value of”,

pain, suffering and loss awards over time and a possible need,

“to change the parameters of the categories of the tariff to adjust or refine the approach to different severities of injury should this become necessary in future and in the light of experience over time”.

Those are two possible candidates, I suggest, for the Nobel Prize for vacuity. Unsurprisingly, the committee was less than impressed by these responses and in five sub-paragraphs it demolished the Government’s position, pointing out that the need for possible updating figures or mechanisms does not justify a failure to include them initially in primary legislation.

Rather than relying yet again on unamendable statutory instruments, Acts of Parliament are to be preferred for this, and for quantifying damages, and are equally preferable where,

“society’s perception of the value of”,

pain, suffering and loss claims changes over time. Equally, it said:

“The need to refine the tariff in relation to different severities of injury”,


can be accommodated by a new Act.

Crucially, the committee avers that the judiciary, with its long experience of personal injury claims, should determine the provision for damages or, failing that, responsibility should be undertaken by independent medical experts. Its emphatic conclusion is that,

“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”,

and that the initial tariff,

“should be set out on the face of the Bill, albeit amendable by affirmative statutory instrument”,

in the future, following further recommendations by the judiciary or an expert panel. This of course echoes repeated expressions of concern about the use, and indeed abuse, of delegated legislation, with the limited opportunities afforded to persuade Governments to think again and respond to concerns expressed in either House. Will Ministers delegate the decision on this critical issue, as suggested by the committee, albeit subjecting any recommendations for approval under the affirmative procedure? My suggestion would be that the decision should be made by an advisory panel or the judiciary. Then, if we are proceeding by the secondary legislation procedure, the Lord Chancellor should embody that recommendation in an affirmative order.

Much is being made of promises made by the insurance companies that savings will be passed on to their customers. Indeed, the Minister has repeated that today. Can he say what estimate of such savings has been made over time and what is their current level? How will we ensure that the industry delivers on the promise, and in what form? The Minister has said that it will, but how will that be ensured? Can he also tell us how much the Government have raised in the form of insurance premium tax since the standard rate rose from 5% in January 2011 to 12% in 2017, and for the higher rate from 17% to 20% in the same period? I recall once suggesting a small percentage increase in insurance premium tax some years ago to fund a reduction in the savage cuts to legal aid made by the coalition Government, but that, unsurprisingly, never materialised. The Minister may not have those figures to hand, but it would be interesting to see them in due course.

There is real concern about the pending increase in the small claims level, which, apart from the £5,000 limit chosen for whiplash claims—however loosely defined— will now be set at £2,000 by the Lord Chancellor. Below that figure, noble Lords will be aware that costs are not awarded. This is significantly higher than would be the case if the existing level was increased to reflect inflation. I have seen two suggested figures for that: £1,400 and £1,600, but these are still significantly lower than the £2,000 now prescribed. If we are to retain the system, should it not be on the basis of RPI or CPI, reviewed every three years as a matter of course? Interestingly, I understand that Scotland has chosen not to apply its version of the small claims regime, known as the simple procedure, to personal injury claims up to £5,000 such that, successful parties in these cases, described as “summary causes”, can recover their costs. Given the Minister’s role as Lord Advocate and his deserved reputation as one of the most eminent Scottish lawyers, would he encourage the Lord Chancellor to look again at the small claims limits?

In light of the current impossibility of successful claimants claiming costs or obtaining legal aid, has the Ministry of Justice made or received any assessment of the impact on the court system of more unrepresented claimants in this area of the law? There is existing concern, which has been voiced several times in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere.

Finally, in relation to this part of the Bill, I revert to the issue of claims management companies: a parasitic growth in our justice system, seemingly able to pursue potential clients via cold calling and seek disproportionately large fees out of the modest damages recovered. I understand that the Government are looking at this matter, but can the Minister indicate how this unacceptable approach might be curbed?

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the discount rate, which is, as the Minister explained, the rate used to calculate the level of damages to be awarded in the most serious cases, having regard to investment returns and inflation. We are looking here at cases of very serious injuries with life-changing consequences that might last a very long time. The Government are proposing a change from very low-risk investments to low-risk as the basis for calculating compensation. It is, however, inherently difficult to predict what future loss or cost of care or treatment would be occasioned in such cases. Greater reliance on periodical payment orders, to which the Minister referred, would help. Can he update us on government thinking on this aspect and how they might be promoted? His evidence to the Justice Committee implied support for this approach, and that is welcome.

The NHS is in a curious position on the issue of damages. Treatment in such cases can be expensive and the NHS must be compensated for costs incurred where the damage is inflicted by a third party, but sometimes the NHS is the defendant, as in clinical negligence cases, but also potentially in other cases, where the negligence is not related to clinical error. Accidents can take place on NHS premises, for which the NHS is liable.

It is in all our interests that the NHS should not see its resources reduced by the requirement to pay large sums to unfortunate patients who have suffered from clinical negligence. However, surely such compensation payments should be funded out of general taxation rather than being avoided by requiring the victims of clinical negligence to take greater risks in investing the proceeds of damages. We surely all agree that the NHS should be protected but the question is: by what method? My submission is that the method that the Government are proposing will ultimately perhaps be at the expense of the people who have been injured rather than of the community collectively, and I invite the Government to think again about that aspect.

The House will wish to give careful consideration to the changes proposed in the Bill. I trust that in doing so we will put the interests of the victims of negligence at the top of our deliberations, but also that we will ensure that crucial decisions are made not by ministerial fiat but with the full involvement of the judiciary and are subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Legal Aid

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we agree that the criminal Bar is one of the vital pillars underpinning the rule of law and that its contribution should be fairly rewarded.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two forms of advice desert in relation to the current legal aid system. One is geographic, where legal advice is simply unavailable because there are no longer legal aid practitioners to provide it, and the other is in relation to particularly sensitive and important areas, such as housing or family law, where the number of cases receiving legal help since LASPO has dropped from 200,000 to 40,000 in the last financial year. Will the long-awaited LASPO review address these problems? Do the Government have an open mind in relation to the possible restoration of legal aid and advice currently denied to people of limited means, with the added benefit of reducing the pressure on the courts system from the growing number of unrepresented parties to proceedings?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, with particular reference to housing, at present 133 of the 134 housing and debt procurement areas for legal aid have provision, and in addition there is provision for telephone advice in the context of housing issues that are covered by LASPO. Our review will embrace all the issues that are being raised by interested groups and will take account of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in their respective reports.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Committee: 8th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, drew attention to a significant weakness in our constitutional arrangements. The paradox of devolution as it has developed in recent decades in respect of Scotland and Wales—and Northern Ireland, to some extent, although it has a more complicated history—is that the greater the degree of formal statutory devolution, the greater the degree of formal statutory consultation with central government.

As these debates have unfolded in the interminable Committee, which I now think of almost as the committee for public safety on the Bill and which we have held over many weeks, I am struck by the fact that we have devoted huge amounts of time to arrangements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have a population of 10 million between them; England has a population of 53 million and we have spent almost no time on it—indeed, I think this is the first substantive debate we have had, in a very thin Committee at 8 o’clock in the evening, on the arrangements for consulting and liaising with England on devolution. That goes to the heart of the big problem in our constitutional arrangements, which is that sub-national government in England has no formal relationship in terms of statutory bodies or arrangements with central government and is largely ignored. I hope that the Minister, who is very reasonable, will at least reflect on the fact that the responsible leaders of English local authorities who are in the House this evening—including the noble Lord, Lord Porter, on his side—appear to have more confidence in the consultative machinery in place in the European Union than in central government here in London. That is quite a telling sign.

The bit of English government that I have had most contact with in recent years, as a Minister and politician, is the government of London. The single most significant and positive change made by the British state, in respect of the government of England in the last 20 years, was establishing a Mayor of London with substantial powers and a real degree of autonomy. When I was sitting on the Benches opposite as a Minister, I can say that you took the call of the Mayor of London; he is elected by a million votes and has statutory responsibilities. For other local authority leaders in England, with little formal status—nothing like the clout of the Mayor of London—and no formal machinery in place, it is very hit and miss whether their voice is heard at all in London.

The paradox of the Brexit vote is that the areas that are the least consulted and engaged with by central government in England—which, to be blunt, is most of England outside the south-east—are also the areas that voted most heavily for Brexit. There is a big and fundamental commentary there on the state of the government of England: whether we complete Brexit next year or not, the substantial unfinished business of constitutional reform in Britain over the coming years will be the government of England outside London. That is not something we will determine at 8 o’clock in the evening in debate on amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill, but it is quite clear that the whole EU withdrawal process has set in train a set of concerns that will be very difficult not to address.

I want to make one final comment so that we can put the entire constitution on the agenda in one short debate. I suspect that the future of the House of Lords will have a part to play, because if we have proper devolved arrangements for the regions or cities of England—however we choose to provide better government for England—we will have something that starts to resemble a genuine, balanced federation in the United Kingdom. Once we have that, the obvious and logical successor to this rather toothless and nominated House of Lords would be a proper federal second Chamber. Who knows? If we can envisage withdrawing from the European Union, we can certainly envisage having a federal second Chamber of the United Kingdom in our lifetimes.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in Newcastle.

Of course, it is understood that the north-east will be the region most adversely affected by the departure from the EU that Brexit will bring about. It is ironic really that the population in the north-east is greater than that of Northern Ireland. Of course Northern Ireland has its own history and problems, but it has not been overlooked in the north-east that in cash terms the offer made to the North of Tyne Combined Authority amounted, over 30 years, to less than half the amount recently secured by the DUP as a condition of supporting the Government. We feel somewhat underfunded compared to other places. Not to be included in any of the discussions that will take place—and are currently taking place—rubs salt in more than somewhat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

Certainly, it is, but before we cause great confusion on the part of anybody tuning in now and thinking that they have tuned into Cardiff Bay, I think all noble Lords will realise the dangers of us going down that path. Suffice it to say that it is wise in the light of that not to be led down the path of discussing a federal second Chamber, although there are certainly issues worthy of broader consideration on another occasion. However, I appreciate some of the points being made.

I am pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is recovering from his injury and that it is not more serious than it looks.

[Lord Beecham]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. I should make it quite clear that it is not damage inflicted by Brexiteers.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am not sure that the noble Lord is absolutely certain of that, because it seemed to be a Tube driver who caused the accident. Anyway, I am pleased that it is not a serious injury.

The noble Lord talked about the particular issues in the north-east in relation to government offices and so on. Again, I think it wise to leave the matter for the new arrangements, but I take the point about the great regional interest of the north-east. It is worth mentioning in passing that there was an opportunity under the previous Labour Government which was turned down pretty heartily, but circumstances change and it does not mean that there are not regional interests that need looking after.

We have had a fascinating and wide-ranging discussion. As I have indicated, I am very sympathetic to the aim of what is being sought, but it should not be on a statutory basis. We will follow up with a ministerial Statement. The Minister for Local Government will proceed shortly to discuss this matter with Local Government Association representatives cognisant of the fact that interests in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will need protecting. I understand the concerns. In light of these assurances, and with the undertaking that I will update the House on Report, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

I hope that the noble and learned Lord who is to respond—if I have correctly identified who is to speak this time—will be able to say that the Government accept that it is right to make amendments in this way. Whether he is able to accept quite what the formulation would be is another matter, but he may wish to consider, between now and Report, whether discussions should take place to arrive at a formulation that those in the House who are concerned about this issue find to be a happy and helpful way of setting it out. That is for him to say. I would suggest that that would be most helpful, but in the meantime, I hope that on this occasion he will be able to say that in the light of what has been said about the importance of the principles of legal certainty and doing everything we can to uphold the independence of our judges, upon which principle we all depend, the Government accept it and will do something to make it right.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

Does my noble and learned friend agree that, in all fairness, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, distinctly and clearly criticised those attacking the judiciary at the time that my noble and learned friend mentioned?

[Lord Goldsmith]

I am grateful for that unexpected intervention from my own Front Bench, but I am happy to take the opportunity to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was one of the few to say the right thing and uphold the independence of the judiciary at the time of that attack. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beecham for making the point because it deserves to be made.

Prisons: Women

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, with regard to the dispersal of prisoners from HM Prison Holloway, there were at the time of the move 241 prisoners who had to be transferred to other prisons. Of those, 114 were transferred to Downview and the remand prisoners, extending to about 56, were transferred to Bronzefield. Both those establishments had suitable facilities and services for the prisoners who were transferred. We are, of course, engaged in looking at and renewing the entire prison estate at the present time, which is one reason for the disposal of HM Prison Holloway.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, it is nearly two and a half years since the closure of Holloway was announced and 20 months since it closed. As we have heard, prisoners have been moved outside London to Surrey, Kent, Peterborough and beyond, with serious effects on staffing and the well-being of prisoners now further away from their families. More efforts appear to be made to develop the former site than to replace the prison. Why was the closure implemented before accessible, suitable and permanent provision was secured?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, accessible and suitable provision was secured for those prisoners who were transferred from Holloway. I have indicated that they were transferred to Downview, in particular, Bronzefield and one or two others. There were individual interviews in respect of all prisoners in order to determine the suitability of their transfer. In addition, 24 service providers at Holloway transferred to Downview and a further 12 were replaced with equivalent provision at Downview. We consider that suitable provision was made in respect of these transfers.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships may have noticed that I am rather short: this afternoon, I can give the House some comfort by saying that, in relation to this amendment at least, I shall also be brief.

The Constitution Committee points out that Clause 2 is not needed to ensure that most categories of domestic legislation—which in practice will remain in force—will continue to apply. It concludes that,

“clause 2 appears to be significantly broader than it needs to be”.

The Constitution Committee affirms that it is not constitutionally necessary or appropriate for primary legislation, which will continue in force in any event, to be treated as retained EU law and be subject to the powers of the amendment referred to in Clause 7.

Does the Minister accept this? If not, on what basis does he take that stance? The provision appears to be a way of allowing the Government to amend legislation by the mechanism of secondary legislation. With all the concerns around the excessive use of such procedures that have frequently been expressed by committees of the House and by Members in the Chamber, it would be reassuring if the noble and learned Lord could make it clear that that is not the Government’s intention in respect of this Bill.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from Members of the House with regard to this issue. We are extremely grateful for the extensive work done by the Constitution Committee with regard to the Bill, as set out in the report, and for the consideration that members of the committee have given to the provisions of the Bill and some of the difficult issues that arise in transposing EU-based legislation into domestic law, because it represents something of a challenge in a number of respects.

I shall begin by referring to a matter that does not arise out of this group, or did not until the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, raised it, because it may help if I address his point about whether retained EU law is primary or secondary legislation. It is neither in the Bill. There are provisions in paragraph 19 of Schedule 8 with regard to the Human Rights Act, which is a very particular case, where it will be treated as primary legislation. There is the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that it should all be treated as primary legislation. I shall not go into detail at this stage because we will address this later, but I want to reassure the noble Lord about where we are.

That recommendation raises enormous difficulties because there are aspects of EU-derived legislation that, for example, involve the enumeration of the contents of a particular dye or chemical, and the idea that we could amend that only by way of primary legislation raises issues of its own. Nevertheless, it seems to the Government that there is some scope for considering how we can take this forward, and we are open to considering not only the recommendations of the Constitution Committee but of others. For those who have an interest in this issue, I commend for consideration, at least, the recent observations of Professor Paul Craig of St John’s College, Oxford, in a blog on the UK Constitutional Law Association site dated 26 February—only a few days ago—in which, supplementary to an earlier note that he made, he proposes a categorisation of EU-derived legislation. I cannot say that it is one that we entirely agree with, but it is certainly one that we are looking at because there is more than one route to the resolution of this issue. We are looking at that and, for noble Lords who are interested in that point, it may be worth considering.

Prisons

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The conferment of a hereditary title is welcomed. Mrs Keen will be very pleased.

This is of course a serious issue. The demands on our prisons are a long-term issue, not a short-term problem, and we intend to address it with a programme of new prisons. Perhaps I may say that the question of capacity in our prisons has been with us for well over 15 years: indeed, we are not quite at the same sort of ceiling of use as we were even 10 years ago. As regards crowding levels, I regret to say that, since 2004, they have remained persistently at about the same level on a measure in percentage terms of between 24% and 25%—but, as I say, we are seeking to address these issues with our programme of new establishments.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, are the Government content that we have the fifth-highest incarceration rate in the EU—exceeded only by Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia? If not, what do they propose to do about it?