In every instance there are advantages and disadvantages. The fact remains that this was an unregulated market. For example, do we think that a figure of more than 35 per cent is an appropriate percentage of someone’s damages? There has been quite a lot of consultation on these regulations, and the figure that we have come to is 35 per cent. I am prepared to suggest that that is an appropriate figure, taking a broad view, in this field. We have to do something. We cannot let the present position continue.
As far as the CFA is concerned, the truth is that, as has been said this evening, the 100 per cent success fee has meant that it has been impossible for defendants, not always the richest and largest, to be able to defend a case of defamation against them, whether they are justified or not. The quotation from the editor of Private Eye that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, used is pretty good as far as that is concerned. How can a magazine like that defend itself when it should defend itself against untrue allegations? If the press, the media, scientists or academics cannot defend themselves in cases of this kind because of the costs—and everyone agrees that the costs are ridiculously high at present—that is a considerable injustice.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the case for reform of libel law in the system that we adopt. Everyone agrees that the libel law system needs to be changed. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has this week announced that that will happen. If the party opposite wins the election, we hope that it too will look at the libel law. However, that will take a little time, and in the mean time we have to make some decisions to make sure that the present position does not continue.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, for the way in which he put his amendment. I hope I can give him some satisfaction. If the order that we are debating, which has not yet been formally moved, passes, we will review it after 12 months. We will, of course, be prepared to meet lawyers who act in this field. I can do better than he wants: it does not have to be after the general election, it can be before it, if that is what he would like. No doubt, if there is a change of Government, it can be after the general election too. Meeting those lawyers is not a problem.
Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 25 March 2010.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c1175-6 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:46:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634527
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634527
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634527