Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010

My Lords, I am speaking to the amendment which is still to be moved. I thank the Table Office for its help. Also, the Government Whips Office has been very helpful and kind to me as a new Member here in the Lords. I stress that I have not lobbied any Member of this House prior to this debate. I put down my Motion of regret because I feel very strongly indeed about the 10 per cent. If there had been a reduction to 50 per cent, I would not have lodged a regret Motion; 50 per cent would be more realistic and I would not be complaining. As the Minister said, the success fee compensates for the cases that are lost. We should not allow the situation to remain at 10 per cent. I note that the Minister has said that this is an interim measure and that there will be consultation, and I hope that that consultation is with companies such as Carter-Ruck and Simons Muirhead & Burton—the people who are at the front line of this service. Without a no-win no-fee facility, only the exceptionally rich can afford to risk losing six-figure sums in going to court. That would be wrong. That would be unjust. The Minister is quite right to say that the defendant can also have a no-win no-fee arrangement, but the fact is that fewer people do that than the other way around. Whether a person in public life is a politician or an entertainer, the target story does not commence at eight in the morning when they open a newspaper and see that there is a case that they should take to court. It is usually at about 10 o’clock on a Friday night or even later, when a Sunday newspaper wants to carry a story and does not contact the individual until very late at night when it is difficult for them to seek advice. To the credit of the no-win no-fee lawyers, when advice is needed they rise to the occasion by making themselves available out of hours and on a 24-hour basis. I have an interest to declare in that, when I took out an action, I asked a no-win no-fee lawyer to take it up on my behalf. It was 10 o’clock on a Friday night, which made it so difficult. I was the Speaker of the House of Commons, all the officials were away and I was at my home in Glasgow when I got word that these people were going to say something that was very libellous against me. As I say, to the credit of the company that I approached, I was able to get a partner on a mobile phone who was taking his son to a football game on a Saturday afternoon, and then he was on the case. I do not want to dwell on the problem that I had, but these are the problems that people will have. Many noble Lords will know the types of stories that appeared in the various newspapers that attacked me in the nine years I was Speaker. The newspapers could not even get right the district in Glasgow that I came from. I have not set foot in the Gorbals for about 30 years, but to them I was Gorbals Mick because to them that was the poorest area of Glasgow, so "Let’s tag him with that". They could not even get right the geography of the city of Glasgow, or they would have known that Springburn is a far cry from the Gorbals. In the nine years of bile that was poured on to me, this was the only case in which I ever took any action. For every case that is taken on a no-win no-fee basis, there are dozens in which the individuals let it go, and I include myself in that category. One of the beauties of being at Glasgow airport is that you get to meet some showbiz personalities. They have spoken about this and said to me, "Michael, I could take them to court"—in their case, they sometimes have the resources—but they say, "Am I going to spend my life sitting in a courtroom when I have a profession to follow?". When the media are feeling sorry for themselves, let them remember that for every case that goes as far as them being presented with a success fee, many have been let go. No one should kid themselves: small local radio stations or local newspapers do not give anyone any trouble. We can all list the national papers that specialise in this type of attack on individuals. If they want to save funds and do not want to have to pay a success fee, they should get the facts right. When I went to the Times, I was not looking for funds from anyone, I was looking for an apology. It took seven weeks of toing and froing, e-mails and meetings, of saying "We will not give you an apology, but we will give you an interview" before the Times finally agreed to a very small apology and to pay the costs. If the journalists had come to me beforehand, they could have saved themselves costs and saved me the embarrassment of what they had to print. In terms of responsible journalism, I would welcome an order from the Lord Chancellor stating that the Government will get legislation through that insists on responsible journalism. Journalists and their editors should decline to get involved in the tactic known as doorstepping. That is where there are two journalists, one of whom goes to the back door while the other goes to the front door, who batter the letterbox and put their finger on the doorbell. The people inside the house are terrified. They think there is an emergency. There are legally qualified Peers in their places. I think that if a neighbour behaved in that way, it would be considered a breach of the peace. This is a tactic that journalists get involved in if you are not prepared to give them a quote. They send people to your door to do that. What right has anyone to do this? If I am the target, why should other members of my family be terrified in their own home? They are not in public life, they are not in politics, they are not party members, some of them are children, yet they were subjected to this terror. If that was happening in eastern Europe, the same newspapers would be attacking it. The same goes for photographers. They park a photographer outside your house because you will not give them a quote. Why is it that when people are in public life or in the media, there are dozens of photographs of them? Why do they park a photographer outside your house for no other reason than to intimidate you and make you feel like a prisoner in your own home because you will not do what they tell you. That is the type of thing that they should refrain from. If they are concerned about money, photographers do not sit outside the house for nothing. Some of them are freelance and very expensive, so why do they do it? Then they come to tell the Lord Chancellor that they are losing money through these no-win no-fee lawyers. They may be losing money in that way but they are prepared to spend money in this way to intimidate people. We are now getting to the stage where journalists are not even interested in coming to the subject of their stories to get a quote. Only a few weeks ago, there was talk here on the Floor of the House about the Press Complaints Commission. I went to a no-win no-fee lawyer only once; I hope that I never have to again. I went to the Press Complaints Commission once as well, and got a satisfactory conclusion. When I was a Member of this House, the Telegraph published three articles in January stating that I had done something secretly in the House of Commons when I was the Speaker. If the journalists had come to me, I would have been able to show them Hansard to show that the matter that they were talking about was promoted not by me, but by the Leader of the House and the chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and was supported by the Liberal Democrats, who went on record as saying that they welcomed it. The articles blamed me. I put on record my thanks to the Press Complaints Commission. When I raised the matter, I asked that the articles be taken off the online system. I did not ask for an apology—I did not want one; I just wanted the libellous articles taken offline. Lo and behold, they were taken offline and I was given an apology. The media complain that they are hurt by no-win no-fee, but when a complaint is put to the Press Complaints Commission there is a clear implication that there is no desire to get any funds, legal fees or anything. We are talking about a private individual going to the Press Complaints Commission and saying, "Can you deal with this?". In my case, the issue was resolved. My point is that, every time that the Press Complaints Commission takes something up, there is no 10 per cent involved—no success fee. Very rarely is anyone interested in funds, so the media do not do badly. As I say, there is the tip of the iceberg—the case that goes to a lawyer—but many cases do not go at all. The cases that go to the Press Complaints Commission cost the media organisation absolutely nothing. The Minister mentioned that the 10 per cent was an interim measure. It would be good if he could assure me that the no-win no-fee companies got consultation with him after the election—that he is prepared to meet them in a delegation. The Law Society has been in touch with me and stated that it supports my amendment. The service is an excellent one. I digress when I say that the no-win no-fee facility has been marvellous for the men and women in my previous constituency now suffering the effects of asbestosis and pneumoconiosis. I know that it is a different subject, but they are at the lowest ebb because of an illness that took something like 30 years to get through the system. Their family—their wife and children—are worried. They go to a lawyer and he says, "I’m working this out so that it won’t cost you anything". It is the same if people’s characters are attacked. As I said, for people in public life, such as myself, the response is, "If you don’t like the heat, you shouldn’t be in the kitchen". However, many men and women are not involved in entertainment or public life, but somewhere along the line someone says something about them and they feel that they should get justice. This system would give them justice. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could give an assurance that meetings will take place with experts in this field.