Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill [HL]

My Lords, first, I declare the interests set out against my name in the Register—in particular, my being a partner in the national commercial law firm Beachcroft LLP. I thank the Minister for his very clear outline of exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve. I say at the outset how pleased I am to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in his place, because we now have the Law Commission Act 2009, which I calculate will come into force on 12 January 2010. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that date because I want to raise two important issues in the context of the procedure recommended by our Procedure Committee that we are adopting for the second time. First, following the Law Commission Act coming into force on 12 January next year, can the Minister outline for us the sort of timetable that the Government intend to follow in laying before the House the Lord Chancellor’s report under Section 1 of the Act on the implementation of the Law Commission’s proposals? Secondly, and directly relevant to our debate this afternoon, when will the protocol as set out in Section 2 be laid before us? One point that may or may not arise out of this debate is the concern about the delay that occurs between the Law Commission’s report and its implementation. However, if I may, I shall come back to that. I strongly support the procedure followed in the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act, which was the first Bill to utilise this procedure. It would be very helpful to know from the Minister what lessons have been learnt from the way in which that procedure was followed, because this is the second and, we understand from the Procedure Committee, last of the Bills that will be used by that committee in deciding whether to adopt this procedure. I very much hope that it does adopt it because I think that in many ways it is a sensible way to fast-track the implementation of the proposals. Perhaps we may remind ourselves why we have a Law Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, knows very well—he referred to it last time—that it was established as long ago as 1965, and its purpose is to ensure that our statute law is fair, modern and simple and as cost-effective as possible. Therefore, we all have a strong interest in ensuring that proposals that come forward are dealt with as quickly as possible. Next, I want to remind the Minister that the consultation which resulted in the Law Commission’s report was carried out in 1998 and the terms of the report were agreed on 14 June 2001. Therefore, it is more than eight years since that report was presented. Can the Minister give any reason why it has taken so long? Is it the lack of this procedure—which is an important ingredient as we consider how best to take things forward—or are there other, more compelling, arguments with which he would like to present us? When debating the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act, the Minister said on 24 April, at col. 1737 of Hansard, that he was rather proud that around 70 per cent of Law Commission proposals have been implemented. However, I was a little dismayed to hear from Bridget Prentice on 16 October that the figure had slipped to 67 per cent. It may well be that the Minister was over-egging the pudding but it is important to focus not only on the 67 per cent that have been implemented but on the 33 per cent that have not. I do not know whether it is possible, as we embark on the special Committee stage of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill, to think about not only the procedure but the reasons for the delay and how we can overcome that delay. It is difficult to compare this Bill with the draft Bill and a previous draft Bill. It may be helpful if the Minister can guide us as to the difference between the three Bills. For example, he referred to the "relevant person". In the draft Bill, the Law Commission felt that the right way to express that was to say "a person to whom this section applies". No doubt due to parliamentary draftsmen or for some other reason, that has now become a "relevant person". I could give the Minister a host of other examples—more for the Committee stage than for now—but it would be helpful if he could share with us a list of the differences and the reasons for them. Perhaps he can confirm that there is no change in the effect of the Bill, because, as he has said, one of the key objectives of the procedure is to build on consensus. If these changes have been made by parliamentary draftsmen to give effect to the same intention, that is one thing; however, if they feel that what the Minister referred to as "minor modifications" are to accommodate not only the Northern Ireland dimension but the other changes, it will be helpful to have an analysis. Bearing in mind that these provisions are generally agreed to be uncontroversial, the need for some form of consolidation is necessary. One of the difficulties which a member of the public will face—and, speaking as a solicitor, I should bend over backwards to move in the direction of codification, which is one of the Law Commission’s objectives—is that it is difficult to follow different Acts of Parliament. Is it in the plans to consolidate the law once the Bill has been passed, and what steps will be made to make it more intelligible? We have a number of Bills in the pipeline—the so-called 33 per cent of these reports. I recall that in the debate in the other place, Mr Christopher Chope asked for a list of all those reports that had not yet been implemented and an analysis of why they had not been. I have not done as much homework as I should have done and have not been through all the Written Questions and Answers in the other place. Was that list ever supplied and, if it was, could it please be brought to our attention? Turning to the detail of the Bill, the report is already more than eight years old and during its narrative—Mr David Hertzel dealt with this in his excellent presentation—the Law Commission comes down on one side or another of the representations that were made by the various consultees. It would be helpful to know whether there have been any further representations since the report was published and whether there are any ongoing problems. I am unaware of any but it would be wise to have confirmation from the Minister. The overall objective of the legislation is to simplify procedures and cut costs, which, as I understand it, will be in everybody’s interests. It would be very helpful to have confirmation that no one has raised any further worries of which we should be aware. I know that the Law Commission has a tremendous reputation for getting rid of obsolete statutory provisions—at the moment, it is considering proposals to abolish 30. That is a step in the right direction, because we all want to see the whole business of statute law made much more effective. It is also considering administrative redress against public bodies and a number of other issues. When the Minister reports to us at the conclusion of this debate that we have made real progress already in putting in the pipeline further Bills to come before this House and the other place under these new procedures, that will give the Procedure Committee a sense of urgency as it considers how best to proceed; it will be helpful to know that there are other Bills still in the pipeline. The Bribery Bill will have its Second Reading on Wednesday and I am presuming that there are a number of others in the pipeline. We should strain every sinew to make sure that we are simplifying the procedures so far as is possible to enable those Bills to be presented once the procedure has been approved and to be enacted as quickly as possible. In summary, we are heading in the right direction. I am slightly concerned that we are not going to look at the effect of the Bill until five years after the legislation has been enacted, according to its impact assessment. I hope that it will be kept under continuous review; that would be better than waiting for the five-year period to elapse. I seek the Minister’s assurances with regard to those provisos but am very happy to support not only the procedure but also the Bill.