Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have taken the trouble to come to this Second Reading Committee today, and I particularly thank those who have spoken. I do not expect that the reporting of this Bill will make headlines tomorrow, but it is significant because it will help to bring real benefits to claimants and insurers, enabling them to resolve claims more quickly and cheaply. Of course, all Bills put forward by this Government always bring real benefits to the general public—that almost goes without saying—but I think that one can particularise this one in slightly more detail than others. I am also most grateful for the consensus around the Committee today. I was asked a number of questions by noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I will do my best to answer some of them. There were issues around the Law Commission protocol and the timetable. I thank the noble Lord for his question about the Law Commission protocol. This is the creation, as he said, of the Law Commission Act 2009 sponsored by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, whom we, too, are delighted to see in his place. The protocol is being finalised; I cannot be certain when it will be fully enforced or whether it will be fully enforced when the Law Commission publishes its annual report in May or June next year. If I may, I will relay the noble Lord’s interest to my ministerial colleagues who are dealing with the protocol. I was asked about lessons learnt. It is a bit early for that at this stage—so far, so good, is what we can say. Importantly, both the Government and the Law Commission were pleased by the way in which the previous Bill, now an Act, went through both Houses. Once this Bill has been enacted, I hope that I will be in a better position to put the case for a more permanent process. The delay has been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Goodhart. It has to be conceded that the delay has been substantial. It was 2001 when the Law Commission published its draft Bill and report; immediately afterwards, the Lord Chancellor’s Department undertook a public consultation about implementing the Law Commission’s proposals through a regulatory reform order. That was thwarted, I am advised, by the limited vires of that legislation; as a result of time passing, further consultation was needed and took place last year, leading to the Bill before your Lordships today. That is a factual account rather than a justification—it has taken a long time. On Law Commission reports, the latest figures I have, which I hope are the same that my honourable friend Bridget Prentice has in another place, show that since 1991 some 54 Law Commission reports with Bills have been published. Most have been implemented, normally by incorporating them into relevant government Bills and, when opportunities arise, within the Government’s own legislative programme. Those opportunities are, of course, limited, and as a result the rate of implementation has not kept pace with the production of reports. Six reports which have been accepted by the Government are still awaiting implementation and government responses to another 15 are pending. It is hoped that this new procedure will gradually help clear the backlog and reduce delays in the future. This Bill does look different from the Law Commission’s draft Bill. I can promise noble Lords that I will be providing a detailed submission on all the changes to the Law Commission Bills so that every Member who has been interested enough to attend this Committee today can see for themselves what the differences are. However, I warn noble Lords that that paper will run to several pages. We heard about consolidation when the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill was being debated. Consolidation of this part of the law relating to third parties’ rights against insurers would clearly help users of the law, but we wonder whether, for the time being at least, it would be sufficiently useful to justify the effort that would be required to get it right. I will pass that view on to the law commissioners for their reaction. Finally, on the issue of continuous review, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly said, we intend to review the costs and benefits of the Bill five years after the legislation has been enacted. If noble Lords consider that period to be rather long, we are willing to consider any appropriate proposals. However, we will continually review—as we do with all Bills—what is happening under this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, supported the new procedure, He described the reform as making the law simpler and more obvious and we are grateful to him for that. He also praised my noble friend Lady Ashton. He may not know this—I am fairly sure that it is true—but her work on the procedure that has led to the Bill was in the mind of the European Council when it considered the various candidates for high representative, and we all know the result of that. The noble Lord is right to say that the part she played should be duly recognised. He was also kind enough to tell me that there would be no amendments on this occasion. To misquote Hamlet: for this relief, much thanks. That of course applies not only to the noble Lord but to other noble Lords who may be considering laying amendments. I am grateful for what he said. My noble friend Lord Borrie gave an interesting account of the process. He was particularly concerned about the report that is to be published shortly. He may be aware that, under present arrangements, the Government are required to give an interim response to the Law Commission within six months of the publication of the report. The insurance law report that was issued last week at the meeting will be delivered to the Treasury and I shall pass on to my colleagues there the concerns of my noble friend that, if possible, there should be an early response, whether in broad terms or otherwise, to the important Law Commission report. I hope that deals with the issues that have been raised. I look forward to continuing our discussions in the special Public Bill Committee in the new year. I am sure the debate will be very interesting. Motion agreed.