Earlier this week the House of Lords voted on measures in
government's Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill (the LASPO
bill), that which is intended to implement various reforms to the civil justice
system proposed by Lord Justice Jackson. Fortunately, the vote resulted in a
decision to delay implementation until April 2013.
As Lord Wallace of Tankerness put it, the drive to make
radical and necessary changes has to be balanced against the need for
thoroughness: "We believe that these are important measures and we want to
implement them as soon as possible in order to control the costs of civil
litigation. We wish to make sure that we get the details of these regulations
and rules right, and that will inevitably take some time."
There will many observers who will have breathed a sigh
of relief at the announcement by the Lords. Rushing through legislation is
rarely a good idea. Time and thought are necessary to ensure that changes are
fair, sensible and workable. At a time when a holistic approach is needed to
resolve the problems in civil litigation and, especially, the personal injury
sector, the LASPO bill, in its present form, is none of these things.
But just as I welcome the delay in LASPO's
implementation, I cannot but be concerned by revelations of the cosy
relationship between the government and the insurance industry. As The Guardian
reported on Monday, insurers were given extensive access to the civil servants
charged with drafting LASPO. The result is a bill that seems dangerously
slanted towards insurers, benefitting the industry to the tune of hundreds of
millions of pounds.
Thanks to a request under the Freedom of Information Act,
it appears that the head of civil
litigation funding and costs at the Ministry of Justice and the official in
charge of the Jackson reforms, and his team gave the Association of British
Insurers (ABI), the industry lobbying body, a great deal of information on
their plans. This seems to have occurred with such regularity and willingness
that Desmond Hudson, the Law Society's chief executive, described LASPO as
"legislation for the insurance industry, by the insurance industry."
Naturally, the ABI rejects the charge of collusion. A
spokesman said: "We have not said anything in private that we have not
said in public and we have nothing to hide. We make no apology for providing
evidence to policymakers to tackle the compensation culture and help reduce
motor insurance premiums. The ABI, unlike the claimant lawyer lobby, has
provided the evidence and analysis to support our public policy positions
rather than rely on rhetoric and anecdote."
But, as the ever-readable Left Foot Forward blog says,
"40 Conservative MPs, including the prime minister, chancellor, and
minister of justice, have or had interests in the insurance industry."
Chief among them would seem to be Jonathan Djanogly, the Justice Minister,
whose shareholding in Aviva PLC amounts to a £97,000 conflict of interest.
Evidently he is far from alone: the Central Conservative Party office and
constituencies receive financial donations from a range of figures in the
insurance industry and business connected to the insurance industry.
This week we have also seen Sir Fred Goodwin stripped of
his knighthood. The Forfeiture Committee's decision to pour such ignominy on
the man who played so large a role in the near collapse of the Royal Bank of
Scotland has been welcomed by David Cameron. It seems to me, however, that the
Prime Minister would do well to look closer to home. The government's house,
when it comes to the insurance industry, is not in order.
No comments:
Post a Comment