Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

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

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

Does the noble Lord accept the argument that the quantum of damages is essentially a political decision that should be taken and justified in Parliament, not taken by judges in courts? How do aggrieved people achieve change there? We know how they achieve change in a political situation: they can lobby their Member of Parliament and get change. Is the noble Lord saying that this must be left to the judges and that we have no way of obtaining redress for decisions that an individual might feel are unfair or inaccurate?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Absolutely not. The Judicial College can respond, and be required to respond, to political guidance if Parliament chooses to legislate on the level of damages. I do not say that that is what is wrong. My concern is about the fairness and comparability of picking out whiplash injuries in an attack on fraud and reducing the compensation to genuine claimants accordingly. My point about the £225 and £450 figures—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

35: Clause 3, page 4, line 5, after “percentage” insert “(not exceeding 20 per cent)”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, at this stage in proceedings on the Bill most of the ground has been pretty extensively ploughed, and I shall endeavour not to till it longer than I have to. We had a long discussion about the setting of the rate on the group taken with Amendment 11, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, got even closer to the matters I have in mind with his Amendment 38. However, Amendment 35 is concerned with the provisions of Clause 3, which, as the title suggests, permits uplift in exceptional circumstances.

The question I wish to discuss is whether there should be any limit on the amount by which these exceptional awards can exceed the basic tariff, and if so, whether that limit should be in the Bill. I think there is a strong argument for limiting the exceptional awards, and for putting that into the Bill; the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was kind enough to take my intervention in an earlier debate. I wish to see judicial discretion limited because I think this is a political matter, not a matter for judicial discussion and discretion. Therefore the limit should appear in the Bill—as a percentage, not as an absolute amount, because if the tariff goes up, obviously the amount of an exceptional award should also eventually increase.

My noble and learned friend referred to this matter in the letter he sent to those of us who participated in the Second Reading debate about the need for a degree of judicial discretion. He suggested that the uplift should be capped at 20% and he has already referred to that this afternoon. I do not disagree with any aspect of his remarks, except that I think it is important that the percentage should appear in the Bill. This is in the interests of stability and clarity—stability because if the exceptional amount could be increased by the court without limit the temptation for claimants to game the system would be greatly increased, and clarity because such a limit would facilitate the setting of the rates of motor insurance and reduce the volatility in the amount of such rates year by year. That is an important distinction to remove absolute discretion from the courts, to bring it into the political arena and to set that percentage in the Bill so it is clearly a political, parliamentary decision. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I am a little concerned at the degree to which political considerations are supposed override our system of justice. This is not the first time it has been mentioned. However, the latest case is perhaps the least acceptable of the recommendations of this kind. Why on earth should Parliament decide on the so-called exceptional circumstances—undefined, of course, for the purposes this debate—on what are already constrained sums to be awarded in damages? It is trespassing too much on the rights of the citizen and the role of the judiciary. I hope that the Minister will concur with that, given his enormous experience of these matters, and, I apprehend, a real interest in justice being effective and available. With all due respect, the amendment moved by the noble Lord undermines both.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his amendment. I understand the intent when we are seeking to address a very particular problem. However, I cannot concur with the proposal that we should set in the Bill some limit to the judicial discretion that will be exercised in exceptional circumstances. We have yet to see how exceptional circumstances will develop once the Bill comes into effect. We therefore consider it more appropriate that the percentage increase in tariff should be determined by regulation by the Lord Chancellor in order that he may, from time to time, have regard to developments once the Act is in force. We do not consider it appropriate to constrain that exercise by setting a ceiling in the Bill. For these reasons, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. It was not entirely unexpected. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that it is nothing to do with access to justice, it is merely limiting judicial discretion. Indeed, the noble Lord accepts that judicial discretion is going to be limited because he is quite happy to have this percentage in regulations which can subsequently be altered one way or another without much parliamentary scrutiny for all the reasons we know. I note the points my noble and learned friend has made, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, my name is down to Amendment 46, moved by the noble Earl. I entirely support what was said by my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. It is not good enough just to say, “We are going to make sure it is competitive”. There will have to be some demonstration of returns and the improvement from this.

Therefore, who invigilates and who enforces? The noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested a review by the Lord Chancellor. The noble Earl pointed out quite graphically the complexity of unpicking insurance claims and returns. I urge the Government, if they are minded to move in this direction, to think about the FCA as the invigilator and the enforcer. It has exceptionally wide powers.

The noble Earl referred to treating customers fairly but there is a thing called Section 166, which is an investigation by skilled persons. This puts the fear of God into people because the FCA can choose to have anything investigated and the cost is charged to the company being investigated. That sort of power is extremely valuable in unpicking the very detailed information that the noble Earl referred to. I fear that the Lord Chancellor’s Department would not be as well equipped to do it as the FCA. I hope the FCA will be uppermost in the Government’s mind if they are minded to have somebody keep an eye on and verify and show beyond peradventure what savings are being made and how they are being distributed.

Belhaj and Boudchar: Litigation Update

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I should like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for repeating the Statement and to the Government for having taken the opportunity to draw a line under this very unhappy and unsatisfactory episode. They are to be congratulated on having grasped this particular nettle.

Perhaps I could ask my noble and learned friend to follow up on a couple of loose ends that are still lying around. The first relates to the press release put out by the Crown Prosecution Service on 9 June 2016 when it decided not to proceed with the case against Sir Mark Allen. The press release said that,

“there is sufficient evidence to support the contention that the suspect”—

that is, Sir Mark Allen—

“had … sought political authority for some of his actions albeit not within a formal written process nor in detail which covered all his communications and conduct”.

Will any further probing take place on what that political authority was and who gave it?

Secondly, there has been discussion in the Statement and elsewhere about the question of consolidated guidance and the review of consolidated guidance dealing with interviewing prisoners abroad when they are at risk of torture and ill treatment. There has been discussion about this being reviewed for some months, and tomorrow never seems to come for this. Will the Minister explain where we are with the review of consolidated guidance and when we might expect to see it published?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. It is not for me to comment upon a press release from the Crown Prosecution Service, which is, of course, an independent body concerned with the consideration of criminal complaints and cases. Therefore, I cannot add to the comments that were made in that press release.

On the matter of guidance, the current consolidated guidance is from 2010. That sets out the principles consistent with both domestic and international law governing the interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receiving of intelligence-related matters and information. At the moment, I am not able to give any indication as to when a review of that guidance will be completed, but it might be informed—apart from anything else—by the work of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which is due to publish its detainee report in the near future. In light of that, we will give attention to the 2010 guidance.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

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

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 in this group, which is in my name, tackles the same issue. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has laid out the background and reasons why this House and the country should be concerned about whiplash—false whiplash—and what are rather inelegantly called “cash for crash” events. I do not propose to weary the House by running over those issues again, which we discussed quite a lot at Second Reading.

Amendment 2 addresses the point made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the lack of a definition in the Bill and does so in a slightly wider way than Amendment 1, moved by the noble Earl. It proposes a definition in proposed new subsection (1) but, at the same time, proposed new subsection (2) recognises the need for flexibility, in the sense that medical technology and medical sciences are always changing and there will need to be some flexibility in keeping the law up to date with those developments. Amendment 2 therefore aims to create an overarching definition, clarifying what is included within a soft tissue injury, but then provides room for flexibility, so that new ways of describing these injuries do not result in them falling outside the definition. At the same time, it allows the definition to be changed to reflect improvements in diagnosis and prognosis of these subjective injuries.

I should say that I was somewhat concerned that, having got a definition of whiplash in the Bill, a definition gap might have been left by not defining soft tissue. But the insurance industry tells me that this term is well understood and does not need a detailed definition here; the noble Earl referred to that. What I understand is called the pre-action protocol for low-value personal injury claims—I am reading this carefully because I am not entirely familiar with it myself—uses the term to define the scope of powers and has been in force since 1 October 2014, apparently so far without challenge or the need for a judicial ruling on its meaning. I hope that this amendment will be a useful contribution to the debate on this important topic.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 3 in this group is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for whose support I am very grateful. Following the two preceding and eloquent speeches, I can be very brief. The point of the amendment is simply to put a definition of whiplash in the Bill. There are rival definitions in various other amendments, and there is now also a government definition contained in the draft SI published yesterday. At first glance, this government definition seems to provide a sound basis for discussion, but it is in the wrong place. It should be in the Bill.

As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has already said, our Delegated Powers Committee said clearly in its 22nd report that,

“it would be an inappropriate delegation of power for ‘whiplash injury’, a concept central to a full understanding of the Bill, to be defined in regulations made by Ministers rather than being defined on the face of the Bill”.

At Second Reading, many noble Lords strongly agreed with this conclusion and it is disappointing, now that they have a draft definition, not to see the Government bringing forward an amendment to put this in the Bill.

In his Second Reading reply and in his subsequent letter to us of 30 April, the Minister did not respond substantively to criticisms of using secondary legislation to define whiplash. He merely noted that he did not entirely agree with the DPRRC recommendations and that noble Lords were anxious about the definition of whiplash.

In fact, the Government had already set out elsewhere in correspondence with the Delegated Powers Committee their case for using secondary legislation. The DPRRC helpfully summarised this by saying that, first, whiplash must be defined accurately; secondly, there must be extensive consultation; and thirdly, the definition must remain accurate. The Delegated Powers Committee agreed with these propositions but said,

“it does not follow from them that the definition of ‘whiplash injury’ should be contained in regulations rather than the Bill. Neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Ministry of Justice is best placed to make this determination”.

We agree with the conclusions of the Delegated Powers Committee and invite the Minister to explain why the Government have rejected them and are still pursuing the statutory instrument route.

As to the Government’s definition itself, as I have said, it seems to provide a sound basis for discussion but we have not had enough time to make a proper assessment and to canvass the opinion of other stakeholders. We will want to return to this issue on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I return to the issue of employee exemption, which several noble Lords have mentioned in this debate. I have a lot of sympathy with it. In my Amendment 23, I shall be seeking some kind of exemption for vulnerable road users. My worry in these amendments is the definition of who is driving in the course of their employment. My understanding is that under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, you are covered if you are driving to work in your car and you are employed. The car does not have to be owned by your employer; it can be hired or your own. You are at work and, therefore, covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I assume it is the same for Uber drivers, truck drivers and anyone in between.

It is difficult to accept an exemption that would cover all those things, whether you are self-employed or employed by a company or by somebody else. It would be fine if one could find a definition, but there are so many loopholes nowadays in driving and road safety law. I have had many discussions with Ministers over the years about whether road safety and driving legislation should be led by the rules of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. In other words, you are at work all the time. That applies to drivers’ hours, driving safety and everything else. I worry about the definition of driving when in the course of employment, and I have a lot of sympathy with anyone trying to find a definition.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I intervene briefly, having put my name to the noble Earl’s amendments. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, quite followed the idea behind this, which is that psychological injuries are specifically identified at various places in this clause but minor injuries are not. The purpose of the amendments is therefore to remove psychological injuries as a specific category and reinsert them further down, through Amendment 22, with minor injuries, so that we sweep up everything concerned with a whiplash unless it is a serious injury, such as a fracture of a leg, which is clearly a different issue. However, the issue is picked up by the reinsertion by Amendment 22 of the words “minor injuries”, such as a bruised knee.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to the Bill in Committee. I begin with Amendment 4, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which would limit the definition of whiplash to soft tissue injuries of the neck. There is then a further amendment that would require the definition of whiplash to be set by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health. The amendment to remove the back and shoulder from this definition would significantly reduce the number of claims subject to measures in the Bill, namely the tariff and the ban on settling claims without medical evidence. It would also encourage claims displacement into other areas to avoid them being subject to the tariff. That would be a serious issue.

The definition in the Bill has been adapted from that in the Prisons and Courts Bill following feedback from stakeholders that the definition in the latter Bill was not broad enough to capture the intended claims. The current definition, with the draft regulations that have now been produced, is intended to achieve that objective.

The amendment requiring the definition of whiplash to be set by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health would provide an independent person who has responsibility for advising the Government on medical issues, but the definition of whiplash injury needs to reconcile the current legal understanding with an accurate medical definition that covers both injuries and their symptoms. This is why the Government have developed the definition of a whiplash injury with input not only from medical experts, but from other expert stakeholders, including claimant and defendant solicitors.

Amendments 8, 9 and 10 restrict the scope of the tariff provisions by reducing the injury duration of affected claims to 12 months from two years. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, observed, this would reduce the number of claims captured by these reforms, but have the negative effect of encouraging claims displacement or claims inflation. Having an injury duration of up to two years will ensure that genuinely injured claimants seek timely treatment for their injuries, as well as enabling the Government to reduce and control the level of compensation in whiplash claims and consequently—as is one of the objectives—reduce insurance premiums for consumers.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke to Amendments 15 to 20 and 22, which would widen the types of injuries affected by both the tariff of damages and the ban on settling claims without medical evidence. It would remove the term “psychological” from the clause, so that the measures in the Bill would apply to all minor injuries related to road traffic accidents, regardless of whether they are psychological or physical in nature. Consequently, this would apply the single-figure tariff to all those injuries, irrespective of number and type, by reference to the duration of the whiplash injury alone. This would result in the reduction of damages for a substantial number of personal injury claims outside the scope of our proposed reforms. The proposed reforms are intended to reduce the number and cost of particular claims—“an industry”, some people have referred to; “a racket”, others have mentioned. We are committed to addressing the issues that arise with whiplash injury.

I understand the point made about the bruised knee. I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, on the potential for discrepancies between awards made under the tariff for the whiplash injury itself and awards made for other minor injuries.

Clause 2(8) makes provision for the fact that the court will take into account other minor injuries and will make an award that is not related to the tariff itself. That is my understanding of the words in parentheses: that, in the context of the whiplash injury, regard will be had to the limits imposed by the tariff and the regulations but that, with respect to the other injuries, there will be no such limitation. That is why we do not consider it appropriate to delete the term “psychological” and extend these provisions to all minor injuries. Including minor psychological claims within the original tariff, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, indicated, was done in order to meet the way in which claims develop in this area. Indeed, it is in line with the Judicial College guidelines for personal injury compensation, which indicate that minor psychological injuries such as travel anxiety are not in themselves separate injuries attracting compensation; they have to be linked to physical injury itself.

Turning to Amendment 21, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, if one considers Clause 2(6), persons who are unable to locate treatment for either their physical or psychological injuries are in fact only required to take appropriate steps to seek such treatment. There is no requirement for them to undertake it if it is not available for any number of practical reasons. I would therefore suggest that this amendment is unnecessary in the circumstances.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

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

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, perhaps I may begin at the beginning. Notwithstanding some rather disobliging remarks from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee referred to at some length by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Sharkey, which no doubt we shall discuss in Committee, I welcome the Bill because it has at its heart the objective of achieving the greatest possible fairness. There will be fairness on the one hand to ensure that those who suffer life-changing injuries, often through no fault of their own, are properly compensated in so far as money can ever compensate for life-changing events of that sort. There will also be fairness to the other participants in the insured class who will inevitably have to face commensurately increased insurance costs. They are entitled to reassurance that overcompensation will not take place.

Sadly, as other noble Lords have referred to, there is a darker side to all this as part of a litigious society in the form of making claims on the basis of no or fabricated evidence. The proposals in Part 1 to bring whiplash claims under control therefore seem very worthy of support. In his opening remarks, my noble and learned friend referred to some of these fabricated cases, and perhaps I may pass on to him and to the House the following example. Last Friday, I was in the north of England to attend a board meeting of a company of which I am the chairman. I took a taxi and, as is my wont, I inquired of the temperature of the taxi driver, political and otherwise. We got on to the issue of whiplash injuries. He told me that it was prevalent in this and other towns in the north of England for young men to buy a clapped-out banger of a car or van for around £200 and engineer a crash with a taxi. I asked why they would choose a taxi. The driver said that there were two reasons. First, they know that a taxi will be well insured. If it was not, it would not be licensed by the local authority. Secondly, taxi drivers depend on the good will of the local authority for the renewal of their licences and so are less likely to put up a fight, argue the case and press for compensation. That is my contribution of anecdotal evidence gathered last week in the north of England, and it is why I think the Bill is an important first step towards reining in the compensation culture.

I say that it is a first step because there are other areas which need attention. No doubt noble Lords will have received briefings from the Association of British Travel Agents about burgeoning claims for compensation for illness occurring on holiday. Moreover, one of the most depressing aspects of the reviews I have carried out of the charity sector is the way in which individuals attending a charitable event, such as a proposal to raise funds for some much-needed community project, seem quite ruthless in bringing claims against a charity. Falling over a guy rope for a tent is a very common claim, as if tents do not have guy ropes and you have no responsibility for looking where you are walking. Charities are often run by volunteers who have only limited access to legal advice. Faced with what they consider an unreasonable claim, they can only use the small claims court for personal injury claims up to £1,000. I understand that this is to be raised to £2,000. However, the £1,000 for road traffic accidents is to be raised to £5,000. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will explain at some point why we are moving from £1,000 to £2,000 and £1,000 to £5,000. That would be extremely helpful, particularly for smaller charities that have to deal with these unfortunate incidents.

Turning to Part 2 of the Bill, I have taken an interest for some time in what is familiarly called the Ogden rate, including initiating a debate on the matter last July, to which my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench replied. I support the overall shape of the proposal. I note the experienced comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about risk. We may be able to have some existential discussions about the nature of this in Committee.

I want to raise two issues that I hope we can explore. First, reverting to the underlying strategic aim of achieving fairness, it seems that with long-tail insurance cases, the use of lump sum damages can result in only one near certainty: that the award will be unfair to one party or another. Surely we need to do more in such cases to make better use of periodical payment orders. One of the answers to the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on making sure that people were fairly compensated would be to make greater use of PPOs.

I am concerned that injured parties—who may or may not be financially sophisticated—may be seduced by an apparent amazingly large lump sum against which the PPO may seem fairly modest and, in reaching that conclusion, may think that they should accept a lump sum. There is a risk that the injured party may be egged on by investment managers who see a long stream of advisory fees stretching into the future, and by insurance companies who see a chance to put a pink ribbon round the file and close the claim for ever.

My second concern is the proposal for the timing of reviews, a process that—as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in his opening remarks—needs to be designed to minimise the possibility of the system being gamed. I share the view that three years is too short a period. Indeed, any fixed-term review period is a very blunt instrument. I would argue that the trigger for a review should not be time-based but result from changes in the available rate of return on our investment. Establishing such a benchmark could be problematic, though changes in the base rate would be a pretty good indicator given that these investments will be low-risk, even under the new regime. Perhaps thought might be given to extending the duties of the expert panel proposed in the Bill to include a power for it to recommend to the Lord Chancellor that the rate ought to be reviewed. I look forward to discussing this matter and others in Committee.

Finally, there is an often expressed concern—indeed, it has been expressed this afternoon—that these proposals to control the costs of claims will result not in reduced premiums for the insured but merely in increased profits for insurance companies. Those of us who have spoken up for a fairer system expect the industry to demonstrate that savings as a result of these measures are being appropriately passed on. To be candid, it will not be good enough for the industry to say something along the lines of, “It’s a very competitive industry so savings are bound to be passed on”. The public are in a cynical mood, as reflected in an article in last Saturday’s Times entitled “Insurers fail to drive down premiums”. The article quotes Mr Matt Oliver from GoCompare as saying:

“Where insurance is concerned, loyalty doesn’t pay. Companies typically use their best deals to attract new customers, so often the only option for existing customers is to go elsewhere”.


If that situation persists, it would be a sad outcome to the Bill, the purpose of which I strongly support.

Legal Aid

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the coalition Government introduced LAPSO in order to ensure that legal aid was directed at those who most require it. The figure of £950 million arises only in the context of a comparison between 2010 and 2016. In that period, legal aid expenditure fell by about £950 million, or 38% in real terms.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, is it intended that the review will cover third-party litigation funding? Third-party litigation funding is a useful access to justice, but too often the division of any awards of damages between those who provide the funding and those in whose name the cases are being brought are obscure. Would it not be a good idea if the courts had the power to require the disclosure of such terms to ensure fairness between all the parties?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the matter of third-party litigation funding is of course a matter of contract between two parties, and the Government would be slow to interfere in that contractual process.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

238: Schedule 7, page 45, line 23, at end insert—
“Parliamentary committees to sift regulations made under section 7, 8 or 9 and the super-affirmative procedure
3A_(1) This paragraph applies if a Minister of the Crown—(a) proposes to make a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(1), 6(1), or 7(1) applies, and(b) is of the opinion that the instrument should be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament (“the affirmative procedure”). (2) Before laying a draft of the instrument, the Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a memorandum setting out the reasons for the Minister’s opinion that the instrument should be subject to the affirmative procedure.(3) The affirmative procedure applies unless, within the relevant period, either House of Parliament requires the super-affirmative procedure to apply, in which case the super-affirmative procedure applies.(4) A House of Parliament is taken to have required the super-affirmative procedure to apply within the relevant period if—(a) a committee of the House charged with reporting on the instrument has recommended, within the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the memorandum was laid before the House, that the super-affirmative procedure should apply, and(b) that House has not by resolution rejected the recommendation within a period of 5 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the recommendation is made.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) where an instrument is subject to the super-affirmative procedure, it may not be made unless the procedures set out in paragraph 3B have been followed,(b) “sitting day” means, in respect of either House, a day on which that House sits.(6) Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (alternative procedure for certain instruments laid before Parliament) does not apply in relation to any statutory instrument to which this paragraph applies.”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, this is the graveyard shift, but graveyard shift or not I shall speak also to Amendment 239. It is my first contribution in Committee on this Bill and when one finds one’s amendment sandwiched between ones being moved by such luminaries as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Lexden, one needs to proceed with a certain degree of care. In these amendments I return to an issue I raised at Second Reading; namely, the weaknesses of the procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, talked a great deal about very fluently in his contribution a few minutes ago. In my view, in the very special circumstances that prevail with respect to this country’s departure from the European Union, I was concerned that, maybe inadvertently, there could be what is vulgarly called a power grab by the Executive during this process of redrawing our relationship with the EU and refocusing our legal and regulatory structure on a UK-centric basis.

In part, these amendments may serve to address some of the issues, and concerns raised in earlier debates; notably by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in Amendments 249 to 251, which we were debating in the early hours of last Tuesday morning. As I say, my fundamental concern remains the weakness of our procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred to what he graphically called the nuclear option, which is really the only option open to us. Not surprisingly, while Members of your Lordships’ House will finger the nuclear button—sometimes even lovingly finger the nuclear button—they have proved rather reluctant to press it. I am not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on parliamentary procedure, so I need to place on record my great thanks to the Public Bill Office of your Lordships’ House for helping me give legal form to my practical objections. Therefore I do not pretend that Amendments 238 and 239 are perfect: they are of course at this stage probing amendments, not least because I expected that my noble friend the Leader of the House would have some words to say today about the evolving position of the scrutiny of Brexit secondary legislation.

None the less, the purpose behind my amendments is to give the Committee a chance to discuss a possible new procedure that might be described as a sub-nuclear option; a new super-affirmative procedure to be available for use where particularly significant statutory instruments are being discussed. In establishing this new procedure I have sought to achieve a balance between, on the one hand, the need of the Government to have a reasonable chance of getting their business through—as we have heard in earlier debates tonight, it would surely be irresponsible for us not to have the proper legal practice in place on D-day, therefore the Government need some protection against capricious behaviour—and on the other hand, to give either or both Houses of Parliament the means to require the Executive to think again, and to do so over a timescale that allows public and other opinion to be aroused, discerned and tested, thereby reducing the possibilities of mission creep.

Finally, the think-again option should be limited to regulations concerning this country’s withdrawal from the European Union, so it has an in-built sunset clause. My thinking has been informed, to some extent, by the time I served as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. So, with that, to horse!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

At this time of night my reading qualities are not at their most alert. May I look at that in more detail and revert to my noble and learned friend?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. She short-changed herself in only one sense: that was that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, described her as mellifluous. Never was she more mellifluous than in dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. The hour is late; we have had a long and helpful contribution from my noble friend the Leader of the House which demands careful scrutiny, so all that I would like to do now is to thank all those who participated in this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 238 withdrawn.

Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2017

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

That this House regrets that the Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2017 makes a substantial change to the Ogden rate, the first change since 2001, just before the completion of a further consultation on how to set that rate more effectively in the future (SI 2017/206).

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2016–17

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the regret Motion I have tabled may appear dry, complicated and technical. It is technical and complicated but it is not dry. It will have practical, everyday consequences for every taxpayer, for everybody who has an insurance policy, especially if they drive a motor car, and for every person who receives a long-term award of damages following an accident.

The setting of the discount rate to be applied to lump-sum damage awards is a critical decision. On the one hand, the situation cannot be allowed where, because the discount rate has been set too high, someone who suffers a catastrophic injury, maybe as the result of a road accident or an NHS operation going awry, finds that the lump sum runs out too soon. On the other hand, setting the rate too low means that the accident victim is overcompensated, which has a knock-on effect on motor and other insurance premiums, and on the overall operating costs of the NHS.

While the power for the Lord Chancellor to set the discount rate is to be found in the Damages Act 1996, the process by which the rate is set is based on case law, in particular on the 1998 House of Lords judgment in Wells v Wells, which reached two important conclusions. First, any lump sum awarded should neither overcompensate nor undercompensate the unfortunate victim. Who could possibly disagree with that conclusion? Secondly, the legal judgment was that the appropriate benchmark for setting the discount rate should be the yield on index-linked government stocks—that is, index-linked gilts or ILGs. I understand that the court concluded that the sums paid in compensation should be invested only in what the court saw as risk-free assets. The court appeared to anticipate that 100% of every amount paid in compensation would or should be invested in index-linked gilts. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that the conclusion was drawn that the benchmark for setting the discount rate should be that on index-linked gilts.

That second conclusion, 20 years on from the Wells v Wells judgment, is a good deal more controversial than the first, for the following reasons. First, the supply of index-linked gilts is limited. They offer particular attractions to those insurance companies and other financial institutions that seek perfect risk-matching. As a consequence, index-linked gilts tend to be fully priced—some may say overpriced—and arithmetically, as a result, the running yields are driven down. Many index-linked gilts are today traded above par so that a capital loss on redemption is inevitable. Further, if portfolio theory teaches us one thing, it is that diversification is the best way to offset risk. Any proposal that suggests investing in only one asset class needs to be approached with care. It is the all-your-eggs-in-one-basket belief. A more conventional approach might suggest, in addition to index-linked and other gilts, investing in some prime corporate bonds and some blue chip UK or overseas equities.

This rate setting is such a sensitive issue that successive Governments have shied away from changing the rate. Until earlier this year, the discount rate was set at 2.5% and had not been changed since 2001. That is patently unfair. The shape of the yield curve has altered dramatically as a result of the 2008 financial crisis and interest rates remain at historic lows. I am afraid that, as a result of the failure by successive Governments to address this issue, victims may prove to have been undercompensated in recent years.

Then suddenly, essentially out of nowhere, in February the then Lord Chancellor took action. And my goodness, it was draconian. At a stroke, she changed the discount rate from plus 2.5% to minus 0.75%. What is the effect of this rather arcane statement? A simple example may help clarity. Let us assume that you are a 25 year-old young man who has, sadly, been catastrophically injured in a motorcycle accident. The court must consider what sum is needed to look after you for the rest of your life—that is, probably more than 40 years. If the court concluded that on the old rate a sum of £2 million was sufficient, under the new rate that sum would arithmetically need to be £7.3 million. That is an increase of more than £5 million, or more than triple the original sum. Of course, the award assumes that interest rates will stay at the present low—historically, very low—level for the rest of your life. If they begin to rise, you will have been overcompensated at the expense of the taxpayer and other insured people.

Specifically, the Lord Chancellor’s decision had a direct and substantial effect on the public finances. Box 4.2 in the spring Budget policy costings paper indicates that as a result of this decision, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to find an additional £1.2 billion every year for the next five years as a guard against future claims. On page 35 of the same report, the suggestion is that the Lord Chancellor’s decision will result in an increase of 0.1% on CPI, or 0.2% on RPI.

The Times of 28 February this year, while pointing out the importance of not undercompensating victims, said:

“But basing the so-called Ogden formula on just three years’ history of index-linked gilts is crazy, as insurers point out. No accident victim in their right mind would invest their entire lump sum in inflation-protected gilts in this era of superlax monetary policy. One-third now opt for ‘periodic payment orders’, which guarantee a return of at least zero in real terms. Most others invest in a mix that includes higher yielding corporate bonds and equities”.


It went on to say:

“Either way, assuming that the best a prudent investor can achieve is a long-run real return of -0.75 per cent displays an Eeyorish level of pessimism. If this is really the government’s official thinking on likely future investment returns then its policies to encourage pension saving amount to mis-selling on a gigantic scale”.


More recently, on 24 June, the same paper highlighted that drivers now face a rate of increase in the cost of their motor insurance that is five times that of inflation. Not all of the increase can be attributed to the change in the discount rate but its impact will be felt particularly by younger drivers, those under 25, who have seen an increase of 13.1%, and—this may be of more interest to Members of your Lordships’ House—to older drivers, those over 50, who have seen an increase of 17.9%. Of course, this rate of increase will continue as reinsurance contracts run off—they last for only 12 months before they have to be renewed, and will have to be replaced at the higher rate.

I suspect—perhaps I should say I hope—that the Lord Chancellor did not understand or was not properly briefed or advised on the likely full impact of her decision. Certainly, having made this dramatic decision on Monday 27 February, which led to a storm of controversy, she then announced that there would be a further consultation. As my regret Motion makes clear, this appears to be putting the cart before the horse. I understand that the consultation is now closed and the MoJ has to report back by 3 August.

A regret Motion is probably not the place to discuss a remedy in detail but perhaps three brief conclusions can be drawn. First, it is critical that accident victims are properly compensated but in future the discount rate needs to be renewed more frequently to minimise the risk of overcompensation or undercompensation. This will also avoid the massive jerks on the tiller which have so disconcerted the insurance industry this year. Secondly, any new system should recognise that an assumption that all the compensation sums will be invested in the same asset class fails to account for the different circumstances of the various injured parties, so that the Wells v Wells conclusion that investments should be ILGs only is no longer appropriate. Thirdly and finally, those parties that are very risk-averse should place increased reliance on periodic payment orders as a better means of offering security to the injured party while avoiding overcompensation or undercompensation.

While tonight the House cannot discuss any remedies in detail, there is a need for action quickly to right the costly inequities of the present system. Following the recent consultation, the Government now have a wealth of information at their disposal. They also have a legislative vehicle on the stocks in the shape of the civil liability Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech. When the Lord Chancellor herself said, as she did on 7 March, that,

“the system needs to be reformed, because I do not think it is right that a discount rate is set on an ad hoc basis by the Lord Chancellor”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/17; col. 657]—

we can surely all agree that action is needed, and quickly. When he comes to reply, I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to reassure me and the House that the Government recognise the significance of this issue and intend to take remedial action shortly. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has done the House a service in raising this issue. I should refer to my interests as an unpaid consultant in my old firm of solicitors, which specialises in personal injury claims.

The changes effected by the order we are debating have been a long time in the making. As the Explanatory Memorandum to the order makes clear, the procedure was prescribed in the Damages Act 1996, which vested in the Lord Chancellor the power to prescribe a discount rate which the courts must consider—though not necessarily apply—when determining compensation in personal injury cases in the form of a lump sum. Until that time, the rate had been determined by the courts.

This is only the second occasion since 1996 when a change has been made. As we have heard, the rate has been reduced from 2.5% to minus 0.75%. The purpose of the order is to reflect in relation to awards of lump-sum damages in cases of significant monetary loss—for example, long-term loss of earnings or the cost of round-the-clock care—the average yield of index-linked gilts, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, explained. Thus the damages awarded will reflect a rate of return which is designed to ensure that the claimant does not make a profit from the compensation but is adequately provided for.

In 2010 the then Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, initiated the process of a review and a consultation was launched in 2012 that was inconclusive. It was followed in 2015 by the report of an expert panel commissioned by Chris Grayling. A further 16 months elapsed before Mr Grayling’s successor but one consulted the Treasury and the Government Actuary, and the relevant order was finally made. Over time it became apparent that the 2.5% discount did not reflect the realities of a changing investment market, such that the compensation could run out or the injured party have to invest in higher-risk products.

Needless to say, the insurance industry has opposed the changes and claims that they will lead to higher premiums. This is par for the course for an industry that in recent years has done so much to increase its profits, not least by persuading the Government to effect changes in the realm of personal injury claims while making little, if any, reduction in premiums. APIL, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, reports that Admiral Insurance stated that motor insurance profits after the change would still be of the order of £336 million. APIL commended the statement in the Government’s consultation that they could be influenced by the effect of the change in the rate on defendants.

Another organisation, Hastings, said that the reduction,

“is not expected to have a material impact on the Group’s financial outlook for 2017”—

so that is one insurer not apparently overconcerned at the change. Even more illuminating is the figure which Thompsons Solicitors calculated as the saving to motor insurers during the last 10 years of the 2.5% rate—a staggering £30 billion. There is little or no evidence that this has been reflected in reduced insurance premiums.

Given the nature of the claims in question, where long-term losses of income can occur alongside a need for special care, home or vehicle adaptations and the like, periodical payment orders—rather than one-off lump-sum payments—may well feature increasingly in the award of damages or the terms of settlement of claims. The noble Lord alluded to that desirable move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for tabling the Motion on this important topic. I welcome the valuable contributions that he and other noble Lords have made.

As has been observed, the discount rate to be taken into account by the court in determining the rate of return to be expected from the investment of a lump sum award of damages for future pecuniary loss caused by a personal injury is set for England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor under Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996. This is colloquially referred to sometimes as the Ogden rate as in practice it is applied through the actuarial tables published by the working group originally set up by the late Sir Michael Ogden.

As noble Lords have observed, the rate plays a key role in underpinning one of the core principles governing the law of damages. Claimants who have suffered injury as a result of another person’s negligence must be compensated fully for their loss, and should be placed—as far as is possible in financial terms—in the position that they would have been in but for the injury. This is known as the principle of full compensation or the 100% rule. Under this principle, the aim of an award of damages is therefore to compensate claimants fully, but not to overcompensate them or undercompensate them.

To fulfil that aim, where damages are awarded for future pecuniary loss—such as future loss of earnings or the care costs that are going to be incurred—in the form of a lump sum, the award is, and must be, adjusted to take account of the benefit to the claimant of being able to invest the money before the loss or expense in respect of which it is awarded has actually occurred. The discount rate is the factor applied to the award to make this adjustment so that it represents the expected rate of return. The court, of course, has a power to apply a different rate but, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson noted, it has almost always applied the prescribed rate in these circumstances.

The Damages Act 1996 does not specify when the rate should be reviewed. However, the Lord Chancellor is under a continuing duty to ensure that it is not set at an inappropriate level. The rate was set in 2001 on a certain basis. Thereafter, there was consultation on the legal framework for setting the rate. Indeed, in 2013, a consultation was carried through but reached no consensus as to any changes or proposed changes to the legal framework for setting the discount rate. So, as at 2013, the coalition Government, of whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was a member, took no steps to deal with what she referred to as a preposterous state of affairs. Indeed, it was not at that time a preposterous state of affairs.

In 2015, an expert panel advised with regard to the matter of the rate. But in all these circumstances, when it came to 2016 and the beginning of 2017, the then Lord Chancellor had an existing duty to address the adequacy or otherwise of the discount rate. That was her legal obligation. In the light of that duty, she announced on 27 February this year that the rate should be changed from 2.5% to minus 0.75% with effect from 20 March 2017. I note that the Scottish Government made the same change to the discount rate about a week later on 28 March 2017. The then Lord Chancellor also undertook to review the framework under which the rate is set to ensure that it should remain fit for purpose in the future. The consultation paper she promised was published on 30 March. It sought views on a range of issues, including what principles should guide how the rate is set; whether the existing methodology is appropriate for the future; whether the power to set the rate should remain with the Lord Chancellor or move elsewhere, possibly to an expert panel; whether more frequent reviews would improve predictability and certainty for all parties—a point raised by a number of noble Lords—and whether further steps should be taken to encourage the use of periodical payments orders instead of lump sums, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

Underlying the consultation was the wish of the Government to make sure that the way the rate is set is put on the firmest possible footing in future, so that we have a better and fairer system for claimants and defendants, and, in so doing, keeping true to the 100% principle—namely, that claimants are paid no more but no less than they should be. The consultation closed on 11 May and the Ministry of Justice is currently analysing the 135 responses received, which, as might be anticipated, reflect a broad range of opinion as much as they reflect a broad range of interests. This requires considerable care and thoroughness, as many of the responses are highly complex and contain detailed technical information on investment returns and investor behaviour, something the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out could be quite diverse and divergent in particular circumstances.

It is not for me to anticipate the outcome of the consideration of the consultation, but I seek to assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that an announcement of the Government’s conclusions will be made at the earliest possible opportunity. Of course, the interests of all parties concerned will be considered, and there will be an impact assessment.

My noble friend’s Motion is, however, directed at the change of rate rather than the outcome of the consultation. His argument is that the then Lord Chancellor should not have set the rate at a time when she had decided that a further consultation exercise was to take place on how the rate should be set in the future. I venture that this argument is not well founded. As I have explained, the Lord Chancellor is under a continuing duty to ensure that the rate is set at an appropriate level. This means that once the then Lord Chancellor reached her decision on what the appropriate rate should be, she was legally obliged to put that decision into effect. The option of delaying setting the rate until the outcome of the planned consultation was known was simply not available to her.

My noble friend’s regret that the then Lord Chancellor carried out her duty is therefore, I respectfully suggest, misplaced. The then Lord Chancellor acted correctly both in changing the rate and in initiating a consultation on whether there is a better or fairer way for it to be set in future. Had the Lord Chancellor adopted the approach proposed by my noble friend and delayed a change in the rate until a consultation—and no doubt any consequent change in the law—had been complete, she would have knowingly maintained an inappropriate rate for what might have been a considerable period of time. That would have been in breach of her legal obligation with respect to the setting of the rate.

Consequently, the approach taken by the Lord Chancellor was correct in law. In these circumstances therefore, the Government cannot support my noble friend’s Motion, and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it in light of the explanation I have sought to give on behalf of the Government.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, the hour is late so I will be brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this regret Motion: the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her forthright support; I think I got half or maybe two-thirds of a loaf—I am not quite sure but I will settle for half—out of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham; and I thank my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Hunt for their support. They speak from a position of a great deal more expertise than I will ever have.

Of course awards need to be fair, and I do not argue at all with the first arm of the Wells v Wells judgment, that it must not undercompensate or overcompensate; it must be fair. As my noble friend Lord Faulks mentioned, there was this sensation around that this is an attempt by insurance companies to boost their profits. If we leave that aside, over the next five years there will be £6 billion less in the National Health Service, which would have been used for looking after patients and carrying out the essential work that the NHS does, as a result of this decision and as provided for in the recent budget development.

I appreciated my noble and learned friend’s teaching on recent developments as regards the setting of the discount rate. His defence of the then Lord Chancellor was stout in the extreme. It is extraordinary that in 2017 the then Lord Chancellor suddenly felt that she had a duty when her predecessors in all the years since 2001 apparently thought that they did not. However, he made a good fist of quite a tricky brief—although I know that, as an expert barrister, he will be long used to and practised in that.

I am pleased to hear that there have been 135 responses to the consultation and that the Government are analysing them. I thought I got a slight Nelsonian wink that we might expect some developments in this area. I hope very much that that assumption is correct, as we have to deal with this running sore. However, we can take it no further this evening, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion withdrawn.