Proceeding contribution from Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 29 March 2011. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Reforming Civil Justice.
Reforming Civil Justice
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's agreement with me on the importance of tackling cost. He has focused principally on the conclusions that I have announced today of the Government's consideration of the consultation on Rupert Jackson's proposals, which I accept were initiated by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), under the previous Government. We are trying to get the cost of litigation down. The right hon. Gentleman talks about access to claims. We are going back to no win, no fee arrangements of the kind that existed when they were first set up by my noble Friend Lord Mackay in the mid-1990s. It was the changes made at the turn of the century that led to the cost escalating to such an extraordinary extent. Among other things, in many cases the legal fees paid by a losing defendant now far exceed the damages paid to the claimant. Indeed, it can be an extremely profitable area of practice if people have some successes. We will keep no win, no fee on the basis of the kind of arrangements we used to have—the kind that are familiar in most jurisdictions. The arrangements that we are proposing to sweep away are unparalleled in any other country and are making litigation too expensive for those faced with it. The right hon. Gentleman then asked about the cost that can be borne by the plaintiff out of his damages. As he quite rightly said, the 10% enhancement to the level of damages that can be awarded is designed to help plaintiffs and claimants, but it will be confined to general damages, otherwise the figure could be astronomical in some cases. However, the costs that can be recovered—the success fee or bonus paid to a solicitor who has won a case—will be limited to 25%, so they will be kept in proportion. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the road traffic accident portal scheme, which has certainly speeded up and helped many personal injury cases. We are indeed proposing to extend the scheme to other personal injury cases, as he suggested. The right hon. Gentleman asked me what would happen to insurance premiums. The answer, of course, is in the hands of the insurance industry and the competitive market in which it works. We all think, ““Oh well, it doesn't matter: it's only the insurance company that is paying colossal legal fees””—on top of damages—““in no win, no fee cases,”” but that could be one explanation for why car insurance costs have leapt to such an extraordinary extent in this country. I hope to see insurance premiums come down. Impact assessments were produced at an earlier stage, after Sir Rupert had received wide representations from all sides. We have taken quite a long time getting to this point, and we are pretty clear on what the impact will be. On balance, I think it will be highly desirable. [Interruption.] I cannot read my notes on the last question that the right hon. Gentleman asked.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 526 c175-6
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Consumers Courts Administration of justice Civil proceedings Legal profession Fees and charges Legal aid scheme Legal representation Legal costs Personal injury Protection Recovery of costs Reform Small claims Civil Litigation Costs Review Civil law
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:44:38 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_732113
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_732113
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_732113