Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 17 April 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.


Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

I am actually saying quite the opposite. I am saying that damages are going to be increased, not decreased. The aim of our reforms is to end the current situation whereby legal firms can get away with charging what they want because the claimants do not have a stake in keeping an eye on the bill. At a time when the cases in question are becoming easier to bring, we should not accept amendments that would reduce pressure on legal firms to cut their fees. Instead, our focus should be on cutting inflated margins, not making exemptions for one type of disease. I understand claimants' fear of being left liable for high defendant's costs should they lose, but under our reforms, we are protecting personal injury claimants from the risk of paying such costs, including in industrial disease cases, by introducing qualified one-way costs shifting.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
543 c268 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Compensation Children in care Asylum Damages Costs Asbestosis Asbestos Legal profession Health services Evidence Legal aid scheme Immigration Liability Domestic abuse Insurance Languages Legal Services Commission Legal costs Industrial diseases Negligence Mesothelioma Social services Social security benefits Training Telephone services Law centres Lord Chancellor Citizens' advice bureaux Care leavers
Legislation
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk