Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010

Perhaps I may first answer the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and then of course I will take an intervention. Why cannot we implement the recommendation of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendation on limiting recoverability of success fees to 10 per cent? The committee’s report acknowledges that significant problems with costs in libel cases need to be addressed. The committee agrees that 100 per cent success fees under CFAs are unjustified in defamation cases. It recommends capping recoverability of success fees, which would require changes to the civil procedure rule. These changes would require more time. The Conditional Fee Agreements (Amendment) Order provides an interim solution to deal with the high cost in defamation cases while we consider the Jackson recommendations and the committee’s proposals, both of which deal with the issue of recoverability. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will forgive me, I shall try to answer any question that he has later. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, has tabled an amendment to the Motion expressing regret that the Conditional Fee Agreements (Amendment) Order 2010 has been laid, ""without allowing sufficient time for consultation with all of the professional and legal bodies concerned and in the light of the benefits of no win, no fee arrangements for those on modest and low incomes"." I of course look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak to his amendment. I mention two points at this stage. First, we have consulted, as we are required to by statute, with the senior judiciary, the Law Society, the Bar Council and others. We have consulted them on the policy as well as on the detail of the order. We have taken careful consideration of the responses received. More than half of those were from lawyers, their representatives and the judiciary. In addition, there have been previous consultations on this issue—the Jackson review and the investigation by the Select Committee that I have referred to. The second point to make at this stage is that we are of course mindful of the benefits of conditional fee agreements for access to justice, but we have to consider the disbenefits, too. CFAs will remain available for defamation cases; thereby, lawyers will still be able to use them in deserving cases. We are considering the way forward for the longer term in the light of the Jackson report. That is all that I would like to say at this stage. I beg to move.