Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Prescott Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Prescott]

25: Clause 46, page 33, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to proceedings that include a claim for damages or other relief in relation to—
(a) interference with personal information or breach of privacy; or(b) defamation.”

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, Amendment 25 stands in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neil of Bengarve.

This is a simple but important issue. However, I do not want to delay the House, as we have had a number of debates on these matters. The amendments in this group would retain the recovery of success fees and “after the event” insurance premiums from the losing side in privacy and defamation cases. The Bill removes these costs and puts them on to the complainant, and I consider that to be fundamentally wrong, particularly in view of what we have seen of late in the way of actions by the press.

It is argued that such recovery of fees may prevent defendants—normally powerful and wealthy people in the media, and in this case the press—defending themselves against a complaint of breach of privacy. I understand that point but I would give more weight to an individual complainant who had suffered breach of privacy from the media or the press. The absence of conditional fee arrangements will prevent the complainant with no personal financial resources seeking legal redress in a case of breach of privacy. Indeed, in this type of case the defendant and complainant are not on an equal footing, and we have to take that into account.

I have benefited from the current no-win no-fee arrangement in pursuing my case against the Murdoch press and the Metropolitan Police. I would not have been able to pursue that case without such an arrangement because, quite simply, I would not have been able to afford it. This Bill strengthens the media’s case by reducing their costs, even if they are found guilty and damages are awarded against them. However, not only does it reduce their costs but it transfers the costs to the successful complainant. However one looks at it, it is not justice for the person who wins the case to be penalised by further costs.

Perhaps I may take my case as an example, although this is not just about me; it would apply to most people in the same situation. The average level of damages awarded in these cases is approximately £40,000. So, in my own case, £40,000 was awarded in damages, there were £40,000 of costs on my side and £40,000 of costs on the media’s side. Put together, that is a considerable cost to be carried by the complainant. However, added to that is the success fee, which is compensation for lawyers taking on difficult cases. In a case such as mine, the success fee would be carried by the people who lost the case. The other type of cost is insurance. If you are going to gamble on winning a case, you have to take out insurance so that it is the insurer and not you who pays the costs. Those success fees and insurance costs are now to be transferred in some form to the side that wins the case, so in a case like mine the damages would not completely cover the costs.

If there has clearly been a serious breach—in my case, it was phone hacking, criminal acts and all the things that we are aware of from the Leveson inquiry—it cannot be right for the complainant who has suffered from those acts to be poorer. More importantly, it cannot be right that the press should have their costs reduced. I understand that it is a heavy cost but that is part of the penalty. The situation is almost like that of the polluter pays. You should think very carefully before you say some of the things that you say and you should not carry out what are clearly criminal acts. If you commit the offence, you pay the price of legal action against you, and the current no-win no-costs arrangement allows many people to sue in such a situation.

The Government are shifting the balance of payments and costs on to the complainant, even when the complainant is found innocent and the defendant is found guilty. I do not think that that is right. I have tried to think of the Government’s reasons for doing this. In some of the debates it has been argued that it is down to the cost to the public, but no evidence has been given for that. What is the cost to the taxpayer? I agree that there are probably heavy legal costs and I have referred to some of them, but if you want to do something about that there are plenty of regulations and powers that can be used. It could be argued that in some cases that is what is happening now. The burden should not be put on those who make the complaint. The defendant in this case should carry the full costs.

Then one wonders who is demanding this change. Clearly, the Government agree with it but who is pressing the Government? The answer is: a very powerful body of media. I know that because they tried to get the previous Labour Government to make this change in the law but they would not agree to it as they thought it was unfair. I see a look of puzzlement on the Minister’s face. Jack Straw may have felt that there was something in it but there was no government decision on it. I leave it at that—we refused to go along with it. However, when this Government came in, I do not know whether it was at a dinner at No. 10 but they obviously got together with some very powerful people and said, “Right, we’re going to do this for you”. It is clear that they want this change and I have given some of the reasons. The innocent parties who have suffered from breach of privacy or phone hacking are not calling for these changes. To be frank, they could not have taken up their cases without the no-win no-fee arrangement. The only people who seem to have argued powerfully for it are the media, and I am not just talking about the red tops or Murdoch. I have referred before in this Chamber to a survey of all the media—the press and television—in which they said unanimously that they wanted their costs to be cut. They did not argue that those costs should be transferred to the claimant; they just wanted their costs cut, and they were unanimous in that.

The people who have certainly not asked for this change are the McCanns, the Dowlers or Mr Jefferies. They sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking him not to do this as it would disadvantage people like themselves who had been injured by the actions of the press. We should take that into account. I noticed that in the Naomi Campbell case, curiously, the British press argued that a change should be made to human rights law. That is not usually their line on human rights but in this case they claimed that their human rights had been damaged by Naomi Campbell. She is a very rich lady and could certainly afford to bring a case. However, that is not the norm. We have to think of people such as the McCanns and the Dowlers, who have been greatly affected, as has become clear from the Leveson inquiry.

The issue is clear; it is about justice. On which side will we apportion the change? Where does the balance lie between the strong and the weak? That is what we do all the time in legislation. This loads it against the weak in favour of the powerful, which is fundamentally wrong. This legislative framework does not follow what we normally try to do. The Minister is talking about whether this can be put into the Defamation Bill. If it is right to put it in that Bill, why wait? I fear that when the Defamation Bill is debated it will be all about defamation costs but there will be very little about privacy breaches, which is what the amendment is concerned with. If the Minister wants to leave the defamation issue, he should leave it to the Defamation Bill, but if the issue is important, he should do it now and change it, or at the very least send it to the other place to consider it further. To duck behind the Defamation Bill and say that it will be dealt with then is frankly not giving the issue the justice that it is entitled to. I am saying that we should side with the weak in this case, not the powerful. Let us have justice. That is what this place is about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

That is precisely what I am saying. I have not brought this Bill this far to score such an enormous own goal. Noble Lords, particularly those who have been in government, know full well how these processes are carried forward. Nothing will happen that will not be fully and thoroughly debated in both Houses of Parliament. I know that various groups have been briefing and arguing for action now. I do not think that these amendments carry us forward in any way.

I give noble Lords as full an assurance as I can. Bills have to go through Cabinets and Cabinet committees, et cetera, but they also have to go through two Houses of Parliament, where this issue is extremely live. I cannot imagine that the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, has raised tonight will not be dealt with fully in that Defamation Bill. With that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Prescott]

I certainly do not withdraw the amendment and I hope that the House will vote on it.